On 25 September 2012 16:52, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 16:06 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> @@ -1066,8 +1076,9 @@ int queue_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>> struct work_struct *work)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - ret = queue_work_on(get_cpu(), wq, work);
>> - put_cpu();
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + ret = queue_work_on(wq_select_cpu(), wq, work);
>> + preempt_enable();
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> Right, so the problem I see here is that wq_select_cpu() is horridly
> expensive..
But this is what the initial idea during LPC we had. Any improvements here
you can suggest?
>> @@ -1102,7 +1113,7 @@ static void delayed_work_timer_fn(unsigned long
>> __data)
>> struct delayed_work *dwork = (struct delayed_work *)__data;
>> struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = get_work_cwq(&dwork->work);
>>
>> - __queue_work(smp_processor_id(), cwq->wq, &dwork->work);
>> + __queue_work(wq_select_cpu(), cwq->wq, &dwork->work);
>> }
>
> Shouldn't timer migration have sorted this one?
Maybe yes. Will investigate more on it.
Thanks for your early feedback.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
