On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 06:38:26PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:09:59PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > worker_set_flags() doesn't necessarily wake next worker and the @wakeup > > can be removed, the caller can use the following conbination instead > > when needed: > > > > worker_set_flags(); > > if (need_more_worker(pool)) > > wake_up_worker(pool); > > Hmmm, yeah, there were more places where worker_set_flags() was used > but it does seem excessive now. > > > @@ -2045,7 +2032,7 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock) > > * management. They're the scheduler's responsibility. > > */ > > if (unlikely(cpu_intensive)) > > - worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, true); > > + worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE); > > But let's do this separately. Please drop the previous patch and > perform need_more_worker() test explicitly after setting > CPU_INTENSIVE.
So, we can do it together at need_more_workers() but let's please explain how different cases would behave there. 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/
