On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:58:05AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Frederic.
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > I'm not really sure this is the good approach. I think I wrote this
> > > way back but wouldn't it make more sense to allow userland to rest
Hello, Frederic.
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I'm not really sure this is the good approach. I think I wrote this
> > way back but wouldn't it make more sense to allow userland to restrict
> > the cpus which are allowed to all unbound cpus. As currentl
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 09:01:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > We call "anon workqueues" the set of unbound workqueues that don't
> > carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
> >
> > They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU i
On 27 March 2014 22:51, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> static int __init wq_sysfs_init(void)
> {
> - return subsys_virtual_register(&wq_subsys, NULL);
> + struct device *anon_dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = subsys_virt
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> We call "anon workqueues" the set of unbound workqueues that don't
> carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
>
> They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU isolation
> (HPC, Real time, etc...) want to be able to migrate all th
We call "anon workqueues" the set of unbound workqueues that don't
carry the WQ_SYSFS flag.
They are a problem nowadays because people who work on CPU isolation
(HPC, Real time, etc...) want to be able to migrate all the unbound
workqueues away to a single housekeeping CPU. This control is possibl
6 matches
Mail list logo
