On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:58:05AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Frederic.
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > I'm not really sure this is the good approach. I think I wrote this
> > > way back but wouldn't it make more sense to allow userland to
Hello, Frederic.
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I'm not really sure this is the good approach. I think I wrote this
> > way back but wouldn't it make more sense to allow userland to restrict
> > the cpus which are allowed to all unbound cpus. As
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 09:01:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > We call "anon workqueues" the set of unbound workqueues that don't
> > carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
> >
> > They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU
On 27 March 2014 22:51, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> static int __init wq_sysfs_init(void)
> {
> - return subsys_virtual_register(_subsys, NULL);
> + struct device *anon_dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret =
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 09:01:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
We call anon workqueues the set of unbound workqueues that don't
carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU isolation
Hello, Frederic.
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I'm not really sure this is the good approach. I think I wrote this
way back but wouldn't it make more sense to allow userland to restrict
the cpus which are allowed to all unbound cpus. As currently
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:58:05AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Frederic.
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I'm not really sure this is the good approach. I think I wrote this
way back but wouldn't it make more sense to allow userland to restrict
On 27 March 2014 22:51, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
static int __init wq_sysfs_init(void)
{
- return subsys_virtual_register(wq_subsys, NULL);
+ struct device *anon_dev;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret =
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> We call "anon workqueues" the set of unbound workqueues that don't
> carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
>
> They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU isolation
> (HPC, Real time, etc...) want to be able to migrate all
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
We call anon workqueues the set of unbound workqueues that don't
carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU isolation
(HPC, Real time, etc...) want to be able to migrate all the
We call "anon workqueues" the set of unbound workqueues that don't
carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU isolation
(HPC, Real time, etc...) want to be able to migrate all the unbound
workqueues away to a single housekeeping CPU. This control is
We call anon workqueues the set of unbound workqueues that don't
carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU isolation
(HPC, Real time, etc...) want to be able to migrate all the unbound
workqueues away to a single housekeeping CPU. This control is possible
12 matches
Mail list logo
