From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755014Ab2BBLMX (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:12:23 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:57881 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754066Ab2BBLMU (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:12:20 -0500 Message-ID: <1328181135.2279.9.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/ehca: use kthread_create_on_node From: Eric Dumazet To: Hoang-Nam Nguyen Cc: Christoph Raisch , Roland Dreier , Sean Hefty , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:12:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1311923731.7845.25.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1311923731.7845.25.camel@edumazet-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011 à 09:15 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > Since create_comp_task() creates percpu kthread, it makes > sense to use kthread_create_on_node() to get proper NUMA affinity for > kthread stack. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet > CC: Hoang-Nam Nguyen > CC: Christoph Raisch > CC: Roland Dreier > CC: Sean Hefty > --- > drivers/infiniband/hw/ehca/ehca_irq.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/ehca/ehca_irq.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/ehca/ehca_irq.c > index e571e60..5358900 100644 > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/ehca/ehca_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/ehca/ehca_irq.c > @@ -786,7 +786,8 @@ static struct task_struct *create_comp_task(struct ehca_comp_pool *pool, > spin_lock_init(&cct->task_lock); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cct->cq_list); > init_waitqueue_head(&cct->wait_queue); > - cct->task = kthread_create(comp_task, cct, "ehca_comp/%d", cpu); > + cct->task = kthread_create_on_node(comp_task, cct, cpu_to_node(cpu), > + "ehca_comp/%d", cpu); > > return cct->task; > } > Any news on this patch ? Should I submit it again ?