On 04/28/2015 06:16 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 04/28/2015 11:49 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:24:31AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Wouldn't this make a lot more sense above when copying @attrs into
> @new_attrs? The comment there even says "make a copy
On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 18:31 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> So, the public function needs to be kept and the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> is killed?
IMO yes.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
Mor
On 04/28/2015 12:36 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 23:44 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>>> So, we need an API to modify the wq_unbound_cpumask, and I provided
>>> this public function. Otherwise, the other code can't modify it.
>>
>> I see. I don't have too strong an opinion; howe
On 04/28/2015 11:49 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:24:31AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Wouldn't this make a lot more sense above when copying @attrs into
@new_attrs? The comment there even says "make a copy of @attrs and
sanitize it". Copy to @new_att
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 23:44 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > So, we need an API to modify the wq_unbound_cpumask, and I provided
> > this public function. Otherwise, the other code can't modify it.
>
> I see. I don't have too strong an opinion; however, changing the mask
> is a fairly heavy operatio
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:24:31AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> Wouldn't this make a lot more sense above when copying @attrs into
> >> @new_attrs? The comment there even says "make a copy of @attrs and
> >> sanitize it". Copy to @new_attrs, mask with wq_unbound_cpumask and
> >> fall
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 09:44:44AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> +int workqueue_set_unbound_cpumask(cpumask_var_t cpumask);
> >
> > Why is this a public function?
>
>
> In V4 patchset, Kevin Hilman had requested the wq_unbound_cpumask
> to be "cpumask_complement(wq_unbound_cpumask, ti
On 04/28/2015 09:44 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>
>>> + /* save the user configured attrs */
>>> + cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);
>>
>> Wouldn't this make a lot more sense above when copying @attrs into
>> @new_attrs? The comment there even says "make a c
Hello
>
>> --- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
>> @@ -424,6 +424,7 @@ struct workqueue_attrs *alloc_workqueue_attrs(gfp_t
>> gfp_mask);
>> void free_workqueue_attrs(struct workqueue_attrs *attrs);
>> int apply_workqueue_attrs(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>>
Hello, Lai.
Overall, it looks good, just a couple more nits.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 05:58:40PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> The oreder-workquue is ignore from the low level unbound workqueue
Ordered workqueues are ignored
> cpumask, it will be handled in near future.
>
> All the (default &
Allow to modify the low-level unbound workqueues cpumask through
sysfs. This is performed by traversing the entire workqueue list
and calling apply_wqattrs_prepare() on the unbound workqueues
with the new low level mask. Only after all the preparation are done,
we commit them all together.
The ore
11 matches
Mail list logo
