From: Alexander Duyck <email@example.com>
To: Tejun Heo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:49:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On 10/2/2018 11:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:23:26AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's all in wq_select_unbound_cpu(). Right now, if the
>>> requested cpu isn't in wq_unbound_cpumask, it falls back to dumb
>>> round-robin. We can probably do better there and find the nearest
>>> node considering topology.
>> Well if we could get wq_select_unbound_cpu doing the right thing
>> based on node topology that would be most of my work solved right
>> there. Basically I could just pass WQ_CPU_UNBOUND with the correct
>> node and it would take care of getting to the right CPU.
> Yeah, sth like that. It might be better to keep the function to take
> cpu for consistency as everything else passes around cpu.
>>>> 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
>>> Hmm... yeah, let's just use queue_work_on() for now. We can sort it
>>> out later and users could already do that anyway.
>> So are you saying I should just return an error for now if somebody
>> tries to use something other than an unbound workqueue with
>> queue_work_near, and expect everyone else to just use queue_work_on
>> for the other workqueue types?
> Oh, I meant that let's not add a new interface for now and just use
> queue_work_on() for your use case too.
So the only issue is that I was hoping to get away with not having to
add additional preemption. That was the motivation behind doing
queue_work_near as I could just wrap it all in the same local_irq_save
that way I don't have to worry about the CPU I am on changing.
What I may look at doing is just greatly reducing the
workqueue_select_unbound_cpu_near function to essentially just perform a
few tests and then will just use the results from a cpumask_any_and of
the cpumask_of_node and the cpu_online_mask. I'll probably rename it
while I am at it since I am going to probably be getting away from the
"unbound" checks in the logic.
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-02 20:49 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
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 [this message]
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
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).