On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:54:47PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan
>
> 06249738a41a ("workqueue: Manually break affinity on hotplug")
> said that scheduler will not force break affinity for us.
>
> But workqueue highly depends on the old behavior. Many parts of the codes
>
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 4:49 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 04:14:26PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 3:50 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > > I don't know how the scheduler
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 04:14:26PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 3:50 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > I don't know how the scheduler distinguishes all these
> > > different cases under the "new
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 3:50 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > I don't know how the scheduler distinguishes all these
> > different cases under the "new assumption".
>
> The special case is:
>
> (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) &&
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> I don't know how the scheduler distinguishes all these
> different cases under the "new assumption".
The special case is:
(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:36 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:54:47PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > From: Lai Jiangshan
> >
> > 06249738a41a ("workqueue: Manually break affinity on hotplug")
> > said that scheduler will not force break affinity for us.
> >
> > But
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:54:47PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan
>
> 06249738a41a ("workqueue: Manually break affinity on hotplug")
> said that scheduler will not force break affinity for us.
>
> But workqueue highly depends on the old behavior. Many parts of the codes
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
