From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755137AbbCLRmq (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:42:46 -0400 Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.36]:58719 "EHLO resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754367AbbCLRmp (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:42:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:42:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@gentwo.org To: Lai Jiangshan cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman , Mike Galbraith , "Paul E. McKenney" , Tejun Heo , Viresh Kumar , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue cpumask In-Reply-To: <1426136412-7594-5-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <1426136412-7594-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> <1426136412-7594-5-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 12 Mar 2015, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > The per-nodes' pwqs are mandatorily controlled by the low level cpumask, while > the default pwq ignores the low level cpumask when (and ONLY when) the cpumask set > by the user doesn't overlap with the low level cpumask. In this case, we can't > apply the empty cpumask to the default pwq, so we use the user-set cpumask > directly. I am wondering now why we have two cpumasks? A script can just interate through the work queues if we want to set them all right? Then we do not have to deal with the conflict between the settings in the kernel.