From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zwisler@kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, rafael@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:54:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4eebc017-23a2-a26e-095c-66433061a141@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181001160142.GE270328@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
On 10/1/2018 9:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:19:21PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On 9/26/2018 3:09 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I could just use queue_work_on probably, but is there any issue if I
>> am passing CPU values that are not in the wq_unbound_cpumask? That
>
> That should be fine. If it can't find any available cpu, it'll fall
> back to round-robin. We probably can improve it so that it can
> consider the numa distance when falling back.
>
>> was mostly my concern. Also for an unbound queue do I need to worry
>> about the hotplug lock? I wasn't sure if that was the case or not as
>
> Issuers don't need to worry about them.
>
>> I know it is called out as something to be concerned with using
>> queue_work_on, but in __queue_work the value is just used to
>> determine which node to grab a work queue from.
>
> It might be better to leave queue_work_on() to be used for per-cpu
> workqueues and introduce queue_work_near() as you suggseted. I just
> don't want it to duplicate the node selection code in it. Would that
> work?
So if I understand what you are saying correctly we default to
round-robin on a given node has no CPUs attached to it. I could probably
work with that if that is the default behavior instead of adding much of
the complexity I already have.
The question I have then is what should I do about workqueues that
aren't WQ_UNBOUND if they attempt to use queue_work_near? In that case I
should be looking for some way to go from a node to a CPU shouldn't I?
If so should I look at doing something like wq_select_unbound_cpu that
uses the node cpumask instead of the wq_unbound_cpumask?
- Alex
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-01 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-26 21:51 [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 0/5] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:53 ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:05 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:09 ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:19 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 16:01 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 21:54 ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2018-10-02 17:41 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:23 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:41 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 20:49 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific " Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 0:31 ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:16 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 19:48 ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 20:03 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 0:48 ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:27 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 2:48 ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 4/5] driver core: Use new async_schedule_dev command Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:42 ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:52 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 5/5] nvdimm: Schedule device registration on node local to the device Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:46 ` Dan Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4eebc017-23a2-a26e-095c-66433061a141@linux.intel.com \
--to=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zwisler@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).