On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:01:28AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:48:28PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Wouldn't the right thing to do would be factoring out
> > > apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()? It's cleaner to block out addition of
> > > new workqueues
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:48:28PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Wouldn't the right thing to do would be factoring out
> > apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()? It's cleaner to block out addition of
> > new workqueues while the masks are being updated anyway.
>
> I'm not quite sure I ge
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 08:57:51AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The workqueues are all listed in a global list protected by a big mutex.
> > And this big mutex is used in apply_workqueue_attrs() as well.
> >
> > Now as we plan t
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The workqueues are all listed in a global list protected by a big mutex.
> And this big mutex is used in apply_workqueue_attrs() as well.
>
> Now as we plan to implement a directory to control the cpumask of
> all non-ABI unbou
The workqueues are all listed in a global list protected by a big mutex.
And this big mutex is used in apply_workqueue_attrs() as well.
Now as we plan to implement a directory to control the cpumask of
all non-ABI unbound workqueues, we want to be able to iterate over all
unbound workqueues and ca
5 matches
Mail list logo
