On 04/07/2015 09:58 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Lai. > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:25:59AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> On 04/06/2015 11:53 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 07:14:42PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >>>> /* make a copy of @attrs and sanitize it */ >>>> copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs); >>>> - cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, >>>> wq_unbound_global_cpumask); >>>> + copy_workqueue_attrs(pwq_attrs, attrs); >>>> + cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask); >>>> + cpumask_and(pwq_attrs->cpumask, pwq_attrs->cpumask, unbound_cpumask); >>> >>> Hmmm... why do we need to keep track of both cpu_possible_mask and >>> unbound_cpumask? Can't we just make unbound_cpumask replace >>> cpu_possible_mask for unbound workqueues? >>> >> >> I want to save the original user-setting cpumask. >> >> When any time the wq_unbound_global_cpumask is changed, >> the new effective cpumask is >> the-original-user-setting-cpumask & wq_unbound_global_cpumask >> instead of >> the-last-effective-cpumask & wq_unbound_global_cpumask. > > Yes, I get that, but that'd require just tracking the original
wq->unbound_attrs (new_attrs) saves the original configured value and is needed to be keep track of. For sanity, it needs to be masked with cpu_possible_mask. + cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask); This code is changed back to the original code (before this patchset). In the next iterate, I will reduce the number of the local vars to make the code clearer. > configured value and the unbound_cpumask masked value, no? What am I > missing? > > Thanks. > -- 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/
