From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: remove unneeded test before wake up next worker
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:53:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140718225317.GC5739@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140718220514.GC1819@htj.dyndns.org>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 06:05:14PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:09:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > In this code:
> > if ((worker->flags & WORKER_UNBOUND) && need_more_worker(pool))
> > wake_up_worker(pool);
> >
> > the first test is unneeded. Even the first test is removed, it doesn't affect
> > the wake-up logic when WORKER_UNBOUND. And it will not introduce any useless
> > wake-up when !WORKER_UNBOUND since the nr_running >= 1 except only one case.
> > It will introduce useless/redundant wake-up when cpu_intensive, but this
> > case is rare and next patch will also remove this redundant wake-up.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/workqueue.c | 7 ++-----
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > index f8d54c1..6d11b9a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > @@ -2047,11 +2047,8 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock)
> > if (unlikely(cpu_intensive))
> > worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, true);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Unbound pool isn't concurrency managed and work items should be
> > - * executed ASAP. Wake up another worker if necessary.
> > - */
> > - if ((worker->flags & WORKER_UNBOUND) && need_more_worker(pool))
> > + /* Wake up another worker if necessary. */
> > + if (need_more_worker(pool))
> > wake_up_worker(pool);
>
> What does this buy us? Sure, it may achieve about the same operation
> but it's a lot more confusing. need_more_worker() is specifically for
> concurrency management. Applying it to unmanaged workers could lead
> to okay behavior but conflating the two to save one test on worker
> flags doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me.
I take this back. We do guarantee that need_more_worker() returns
%true for unbound pools and make use of that fact but I'd like it to
retain the comment about unbound pools.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-18 22:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-16 10:09 Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-16 10:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: remove the argument @wakeup from worker_set_flags() Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-18 22:38 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-18 22:53 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-18 22:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: remove unneeded test before wake up next worker Tejun Heo
2014-07-18 22:53 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2014-07-22 5:01 ` [PATCH 1/2 V2] " Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-22 5:02 ` [PATCH 2/2 V2] workqueue: remove the argument @wakeup from worker_set_flags() Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-22 14:38 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140718225317.GC5739@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®