Le Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Tony Nguyen a écrit :
>
>
> On 9/23/2024 1:57 AM, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > On 9/23/24 00:24, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > The ice workqueue doesn't seem to rely on any CPU locality and should
> > > therefore be able to run on any CPU. In practice this is already
> > > happening through the unbound ice_service_timer that may fire anywhere
> > > and queue the workqueue accordingly to any CPU.
> > >
> > > Make this official so that the ice workqueue is only ever queued to
> > > housekeeping CPUs on nohz_full.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > > index ea780d468579..70990f42ac05 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > > @@ -5924,7 +5924,7 @@ static int __init ice_module_init(void)
> > > ice_adv_lnk_speed_maps_init();
> > > - ice_wq = alloc_workqueue("%s", 0, 0, KBUILD_MODNAME);
> > > + ice_wq = alloc_workqueue("%s", WQ_UNBOUND, 0, KBUILD_MODNAME);
> > > if (!ice_wq) {
> > > pr_err("Failed to create workqueue\n");
> > > return status;
> >
> > Thank you for the patch, it would make sense for our iwl-next tree,
> > with such assumption:
> > Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kits...@intel.com>
> >
> > @Tony, do you want it resent with target tree in the subject?
>
> No, I can apply this as-is but please remember to designate a tree for
> future patches.
Sorry I didn't know about any tree. I can't even find where iwl-next is
hosted.
Thanks.
> Thanks,
> Tony
