>From 951a078a5285ad31bc22e190616ad54b78fac992 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:52:30 -0700
If pwq_adjust_max_active() changes max_active from 0 to saved_max_active, it needs to wakeup worker. This is already done by thaw_workqueues(). If pwq_adjust_max_active() increases max_active for an unbound wq, while not strictly necessary for correctness, it's still desirable to wake up a worker so that the requested concurrency level is reached sooner. Move wake_up_worker() call from thaw_workqueues() to pwq_adjust_max_active() so that it can handle both of the above two cases. This also makes thaw_workqueues() simpler. tj: Updated comments and description. Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> --- kernel/workqueue.c | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index d2ac6cb..79d1d34 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -3598,6 +3598,12 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq) while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) && pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active) pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq); + + /* + * Need to kick a worker after thawed or an unbound wq's + * max_active is bumped. It's a slow path. Do it always. + */ + wake_up_worker(pwq->pool); } else { pwq->max_active = 0; } @@ -4401,13 +4407,6 @@ void thaw_workqueues(void) } spin_unlock_irq(&pwq_lock); - /* kick workers */ - for_each_pool(pool, pi) { - spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock); - wake_up_worker(pool); - spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock); - } - workqueue_freezing = false; out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&wq_mutex); -- 1.8.1.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
