Hey,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 07:19:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hmmm? Not really. We need to keep count of the ones which reqested
> > fixed binding - ie. the ones which explicitly used queue_work_on() -
> > and then flush on wq CPU_DOWN. Then, we need to audit the current
> > users which are using queue_work{_on}() + explicit FLUSH on CPU_DOWN
> > and convert them.
>
> No, that's the wrong way about. Just add another WQ_flag, so you can
> tell which work-queues want sane semantics and those mucking about for
> laughs, say WQ_NON_AFFINE.
>
> Then those with sane semantics (!WQ_NON_AFFINE) get an explicit flush on
> DOWN and don't need to muck about with detaching and re-attaching etc..
Two things - 1. I'd prefer the CPU-affinity requirement to be explicit
at the callsite. 2. To implement it the way you describe, we would
have to implement per-cpu workqueue flush, which is possible but I
don't wanna complicate flush_workqueue() implementation anymore than
it already is. It's a still a relatively cold exception path. No
need to complicate the usual path with it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
