On 10/2/2018 10:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 02:54:39PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
It might be better to leave queue_work_on() to be used for per-cpu
workqueues and introduce queue_work_near() as you suggseted. I just
don't want it to duplicate the node selection code in it. Would that
work?
So if I understand what you are saying correctly we default to
round-robin on a given node has no CPUs attached to it. I could
probably work with that if that is the default behavior instead of
adding much of the complexity I already have.
Yeah, it's all in wq_select_unbound_cpu(). Right now, if the
requested cpu isn't in wq_unbound_cpumask, it falls back to dumb
round-robin. We can probably do better there and find the nearest
node considering topology.
Well if we could get wq_select_unbound_cpu doing the right thing based
on node topology that would be most of my work solved right there.
Basically I could just pass WQ_CPU_UNBOUND with the correct node and it
would take care of getting to the right CPU.
The question I have then is what should I do about workqueues that
aren't WQ_UNBOUND if they attempt to use queue_work_near? In that
Hmm... yeah, let's just use queue_work_on() for now. We can sort it
out later and users could already do that anyway.
Thanks.
So are you saying I should just return an error for now if somebody
tries to use something other than an unbound workqueue with
queue_work_near, and expect everyone else to just use queue_work_on for
the other workqueue types?
Thanks.
- Alex
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
