Hello, Lai.
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 02:34:02AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> in 3.6 busy_worker_rebind() handle WORKER_REBIND bit,
> not WORKER_UNBOUND bit.
>
> busy_worker_rebind() takes struct work_struct *work argument, we have to
> add new patch to add a helper and restruct it at first.
What's wrong with just treating manager as busy. Factor out,
rebind_work scheduling from rebind_workers() and call it for busy
workers and the manager if it exists. manage_workers() only need to
call process_scheduled_works(). Wouldn't that work?
> worker_maybe_bind_and_lock() 's mean is very clear
> here. busy_worker_rebind() seems for busy workers, manager is not
> busy workers.
I don't know. It just seems unnecessarily wordy. If you don't like
reusing the busy worker path, how about just calling
maybe_bind_and_lock() unconditionally after locking manager_mutex? I
mean, can't it just do the following?
spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
/*
* Explain what's going on.
*/
mutex_lock(&pool->manager_mutex);
if (worker_maybe_bind_and_lock(worker))
worker_clr_flags(worker, WORKER_UNBOUND);
ret = true;
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/
