From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751517AbeCNPXx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:23:53 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:51546 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751362AbeCNPXw (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:23:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:23:46 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RT PATCH 2/2] block: blk-mq: move
 blk_queue_usage_counter_release() into process context
Message-ID: <20180314152345.xyphm4dg4m7suqov@linutronix.de>
References: <20180309202550.j66qphz3txupt55u@linutronix.de>
 <20180309222643.GC5926@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180312105113.p7jifhwdwbhpvxds@linutronix.de>
 <20180312132729.GI4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180312141107.roveviectc6a75s7@linutronix.de>
 <20180312142933.GF4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180312195118.rye5lg2pb26kmavn@linutronix.de>
 <20180313184039.begptzircgb5ketk@linutronix.de>
 <20180313184240.ndq2pw2fmvhkwidc@linutronix.de>
 <20180313201039.GB4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180313201039.GB4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180223
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2018-03-13 21:10:39 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 07:42:41PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > +static void blk_queue_usage_counter_release_swork(struct swork_event *sev)
> > +{
> > +	struct request_queue *q =
> > +		container_of(sev, struct request_queue, mq_pcpu_wake);
> > +
> > +	wake_up_all(&q->mq_freeze_wq);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void blk_queue_usage_counter_release(struct percpu_ref *ref)
> >  {
> >  	struct request_queue *q =
> >  		container_of(ref, struct request_queue, q_usage_counter);
> >  
> > -	wake_up_all(&q->mq_freeze_wq);
> > +	swork_queue(&q->mq_pcpu_wake);
> >  }
> 
> Depending on if we expect there to actually be wakeups, you could do
> something like:
> 
> 	if (wq_has_sleepers(&q->mq_freeze_wq))
> 		swork_queue(&q->mq_pcpu_wake));
> 
> avoiding the whole workqueue thing in the case there wasn't anybody
> waiting for it. But since I don't know this code, I can't say if it
> makes sense or not. Tejun?

this pops up on boot and shows that there are no waiter. So I consider
to take this.

Sebastian