Hey,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:29:08PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Should we reorder the pwq_adjust_max_active() to avoid this declare?
> (Move pwq_adjust_max_active() to the place just before rcu_free_pwq())
Yeah, sure. Sounds good to me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On 05/17/2014 12:16 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> @@ -3708,6 +3712,13 @@ static void rcu_free_pwq(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> container_of(rcu, struct pool_workqueue, rcu));
> }
>
> +static struct pool_workqueue *oldest_pwq(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> +{
> + return l
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:35:34AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 04:32:31PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > But that's the same for other pwqs too. Back-to-back requeueing will
> > > hold back pwq switching on any workqueue.
> >
> > I don't think so, becaus
Hello,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 04:32:31PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But that's the same for other pwqs too. Back-to-back requeueing will
> > hold back pwq switching on any workqueue.
>
> I don't think so, because non ordered pwqs aren't created with 0 max_active,
> so they can run be
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:15:31PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:41:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > - last_pool = get_work_pool(work);
> > > > + last_pool = wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED ? NULL :
> > > > get_work_pool(work);
> > > >
Hello,
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:41:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > - last_pool = get_work_pool(work);
> > > + last_pool = wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED ? NULL : get_work_pool(work);
> > > if (last_pool && last_pool != pwq->pool) {
> > > struct worker *worker;
> >
> > I'm not
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:12:25PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 06:16:51PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > From: Lai Jiangshan
> >
> > Changing the attributions of a workqueue imply the addition of new pwqs
> > to replace the old ones. But the current implem
Hello,
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 06:16:51PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan
>
> Changing the attributions of a workqueue imply the addition of new pwqs
> to replace the old ones. But the current implementation doesn't handle
> ordered workqueues because they can't carry mul
8 matches
Mail list logo
