Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: remove the argument @wakeup from worker_set_flags()

[Tejun Heo]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 06:38:26PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:09:59PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > worker_set_flags() doesn't necessarily wake next worker and the @wakeup
> > can be removed, the caller can use the following conbination instead
> > when needed:
> > 
> > 	worker_set_flags();
> > 	if (need_more_worker(pool))
> >  		wake_up_worker(pool);
> 
> Hmmm, yeah, there were more places where worker_set_flags() was used
> but it does seem excessive now.
> 
> > @@ -2045,7 +2032,7 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock)
> >  	 * management.  They're the scheduler's responsibility.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (unlikely(cpu_intensive))
> > -		worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, true);
> > +		worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE);
> 
> But let's do this separately.  Please drop the previous patch and
> perform need_more_worker() test explicitly after setting
> CPU_INTENSIVE.

So, we can do it together at need_more_workers() but let's please
explain how different cases would behave there.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/