Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Subject | [PATCH 05/21] workqueue: kick workers in pwq_adjust_max_active() | Date | Wed, 20 Mar 2013 03:28:05 +0800 |
| |
if pwq_adjust_max_active() changes max_active from 0 to saved_max_active, it needs to wakeup worker. This action is already done by thaw_workqueues().
if pwq_adjust_max_active() increase the max_active for unbound wq, it also needs to wakeup worker. This action is missing.
To make these two cases happy, we move kicking workers code from thaw_workqueues() to pwq_adjust_max_active().
It also makes thaw_workqueues() simpler.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> --- kernel/workqueue.c | 15 ++++++++------- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index 8c882ae..fb81159 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -3600,6 +3600,14 @@ static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq) while (!list_empty(&pwq->delayed_works) && pwq->nr_active < pwq->max_active) pwq_activate_first_delayed(pwq); + + /* + * Need to wake up worker in any of these cases: + * wq is just thawed + * unbound wq's max_active is just increased + * But this function is slowpath, wake up worker unconditionally + */ + wake_up_worker(pwq->pool); } spin_unlock(&pwq->pool->lock); @@ -4401,13 +4409,6 @@ void thaw_workqueues(void) } spin_unlock_irq(&pwq_lock); - /* kick workers */ - for_each_pool(pool, pi) { - spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock); - wake_up_worker(pool); - spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock); - } - workqueue_freezing = false; out_unlock: mutex_unlock(&wq_mutex); -- 1.7.7.6
| |