Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: don't always set __WQ_ORDERED implicitly

2020-06-30 Thread Bob Liu
On 6/29/20 8:37 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:13 AM Bob Liu wrote: >> >> On 6/28/20 11:54 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bob Liu wrote: Current code always set 'Unbound && max_active == 1' workqueues to ordered implicitly, while

Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: don't always set __WQ_ORDERED implicitly

2020-06-28 Thread Bob Liu
On 6/29/20 8:37 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:13 AM Bob Liu wrote: >> >> On 6/28/20 11:54 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bob Liu wrote: Current code always set 'Unbound && max_active == 1' workqueues to ordered implicitly, while

Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: don't always set __WQ_ORDERED implicitly

2020-06-28 Thread Lai Jiangshan
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:13 AM Bob Liu wrote: > > On 6/28/20 11:54 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bob Liu wrote: > >> > >> Current code always set 'Unbound && max_active == 1' workqueues to ordered > >> implicitly, while this may be not an expected behaviour for som

Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: don't always set __WQ_ORDERED implicitly

2020-06-28 Thread Bob Liu
On 6/28/20 11:54 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bob Liu wrote: >> >> Current code always set 'Unbound && max_active == 1' workqueues to ordered >> implicitly, while this may be not an expected behaviour for some use cases. >> >> E.g some scsi and iscsi workqueues(unboun

Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: don't always set __WQ_ORDERED implicitly

2020-06-28 Thread Lai Jiangshan
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bob Liu wrote: > > Current code always set 'Unbound && max_active == 1' workqueues to ordered > implicitly, while this may be not an expected behaviour for some use cases. > > E.g some scsi and iscsi workqueues(unbound && max_active = 1) want to be bind > to differe

Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: don't always set __WQ_ORDERED implicitly

2020-06-21 Thread Bob Liu
ping.. On 6/11/20 6:07 PM, Bob Liu wrote: > Current code always set 'Unbound && max_active == 1' workqueues to ordered > implicitly, while this may be not an expected behaviour for some use cases. > > E.g some scsi and iscsi workqueues(unbound && max_active = 1) want to be bind > to different cpu

[PATCH 1/2] workqueue: don't always set __WQ_ORDERED implicitly

2020-06-11 Thread Bob Liu
Current code always set 'Unbound && max_active == 1' workqueues to ordered implicitly, while this may be not an expected behaviour for some use cases. E.g some scsi and iscsi workqueues(unbound && max_active = 1) want to be bind to different cpu so as to get better isolation, but their cpumask can