On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 10:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Why do we do nothing about these allegedly unbound work items?
My box seems to think the answer is: no reason other than nobody having
asked the source to please not do that. Guess I'll go ask a NUMA box.
workqueue: RR schedule unbound
On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 10:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Why do we do nothing about these allegedly unbound work items?
Hm, the answer to that question may be as simple as "Because we know
gotchas exist, but not where they all the little bastards live" ;-)
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from
On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 15:36 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> But we can't leave it half-way like it is currently with everything preset on
> top of nohz: rcu nocb mask, watchdog mask, cpu_isolation_map and exclude
> workqueue.
To automate or not aside...
WRT wq_unbound_cpumask, it's very nic
On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 15:36 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:15:48PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do
> > > this before (ISTR people discu
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:15:48PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do
> > this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too).
>
> I'm dead set against all this auto-presume
On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do
> this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too).
I'm dead set against all this auto-presume nonsense fwtw Allocating a
pool of no_hz_full _capable_ CPUs should not en
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:35:09PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Initializing wq unbound cpumask to housekeeping_mask is still the
> plan. I just remember we didn't do it in Lai's series because it
> was slightly unrelated. When a patchset is complicated, like Lai's,
> it's better to
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:27:20AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Mike.
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 06:26:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Hm, I thought the plan was that after the Lai's unbound series landed,
> > his ordered wq patch would follow, but perhaps not.
>
> Yes, that still is t
Hello, Mike.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 06:26:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hm, I thought the plan was that after the Lai's unbound series landed,
> his ordered wq patch would follow, but perhaps not.
Yes, that still is the plan but this is kinda unrelated to that
change. This just initialize
On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 15:24 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:16:23PM -0300, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > By default, unbounded workqueues run on all CPUs, which includes
> > isolated CPUs. This patch avoids unbounded workqueues running on
> > isolated CPUs b
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:16:23PM -0300, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> By default, unbounded workqueues run on all CPUs, which includes
> isolated CPUs. This patch avoids unbounded workqueues running on
> isolated CPUs by default, keeping the current behavior when no
> CPUs were isol
By default, unbounded workqueues run on all CPUs, which includes
isolated CPUs. This patch avoids unbounded workqueues running on
isolated CPUs by default, keeping the current behavior when no
CPUs were isolated.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 5 -
1 file
12 matches
Mail list logo
