On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:14:19AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Shaohua. > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:49:55PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > Note that copy_workqueue_attrs() is also used while creating worker > > > pools and this change would mean that there will be worker pools with > > > no_numa attribute assigned basically randomly depending on which wq > > > created the pool for the first time which should be fine AFAICS but > > > isn't very nice. Given that there's only single place where a pool's > > > attrs is set, maybe it'd be best to clear no_numa right after copy and > > > explain what's going on there? > > > > alloc_workqueue_attrs() always zero the new allocated attr. > > Hmmm? Yeah, sure, that's how it currently is always zero for all > pools. If you change the copy function, it'll now be set to whatever > the input value was when a pool was created, which shouldn't break > anything but is a bit confusing as no_numa doesn't have anything to do > with pools directly. Just in case, I'm talking about > copy_workqueue_attrs() call in get_unbound_pool().
Hmm, I didn't agree it's more confusing to change copy_workqueue_attrs(), the name of the function suggests it is a 'copy'. And clearing no_numa in apply_workqueue_attrs() after copy_workqueue_attrs() looks like a hack to me. But it depends on you, feel free to fix it by yourself. Thanks, Shaohua -- 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/
