From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762584AbaGRWib (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:38:31 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:32833 "EHLO mail-qc0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754379AbaGRWia (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:38:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:38:26 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Lai Jiangshan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: remove the argument @wakeup from worker_set_flags() Message-ID: <20140718223826.GD1819@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1405505409-12058-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> <1405505409-12058-2-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1405505409-12058-2-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks. -- tejun