From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932990Ab3HNQ5h (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:57:37 -0400 Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com ([209.85.128.175]:58122 "EHLO mail-ve0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932867Ab3HNQ5g (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:57:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:57:23 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Chris Metcalf Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , Cody P Schafer Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain_all() selective Message-ID: <20130814165723.GE28628@htj.dyndns.org> References: <520AAF9C.1050702@tilera.com> <201308132307.r7DN74M5029053@farm-0021.internal.tilera.com> <20130813232904.GJ28996@mtj.dyndns.org> <520AC215.4050803@tilera.com> <20130813234629.4ce2ec70.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <520BAA5B.9070407@tilera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <520BAA5B.9070407@tilera.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Chris. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:03:39PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > Tejun, I don't know if you have a better idea for how to mark a > work_struct as being "not used" so we can set and test it here. > Is setting entry.next to NULL good? Should we offer it as an API > in the workqueue header? Maybe simply defining a static cpumask would be cleaner? > We could wrap the whole thing in a new workqueue API too, of course > (schedule_on_each_cpu_cond_sequential??) but it seems better at this > point to wait until we find another caller with similar needs, and only > then factor the code into a new workqueue API. We can have e.g. __schedule_on_cpu(fn, pcpu_works) but yeah it seems a bit excessive at this point. Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx171.postini.com [74.125.245.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 873866B0038 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id pa12so7853919veb.2 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:57:23 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain_all() selective Message-ID: <20130814165723.GE28628@htj.dyndns.org> References: <520AAF9C.1050702@tilera.com> <201308132307.r7DN74M5029053@farm-0021.internal.tilera.com> <20130813232904.GJ28996@mtj.dyndns.org> <520AC215.4050803@tilera.com> <20130813234629.4ce2ec70.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <520BAA5B.9070407@tilera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <520BAA5B.9070407@tilera.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Chris Metcalf Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , Cody P Schafer Hello, Chris. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:03:39PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > Tejun, I don't know if you have a better idea for how to mark a > work_struct as being "not used" so we can set and test it here. > Is setting entry.next to NULL good? Should we offer it as an API > in the workqueue header? Maybe simply defining a static cpumask would be cleaner? > We could wrap the whole thing in a new workqueue API too, of course > (schedule_on_each_cpu_cond_sequential??) but it seems better at this > point to wait until we find another caller with similar needs, and only > then factor the code into a new workqueue API. We can have e.g. __schedule_on_cpu(fn, pcpu_works) but yeah it seems a bit excessive at this point. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org