Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:18:31 -0400 | From | Chris Metcalf <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain_all() selective |
| |
On 8/14/2013 12:57 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Chris. > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:03:39PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: >> Tejun, I don't know if you have a better idea for how to mark a >> work_struct as being "not used" so we can set and test it here. >> Is setting entry.next to NULL good? Should we offer it as an API >> in the workqueue header? > Maybe simply defining a static cpumask would be cleaner?
I think you're right, actually. Andrew, Tejun, how does this look?
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, lru_add_drain_work);
void lru_add_drain_all(void) { static DEFINE_MUTEX(lock); static struct cpumask has_work; int cpu;
mutex_lock(&lock); get_online_cpus(); cpumask_clear(&has_work);
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu(lru_add_drain_work, cpu);
if (pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_add_pvec, cpu)) || pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_rotate_pvecs, cpu)) || pagevec_count(&per_cpu(lru_deactivate_pvecs, cpu)) || need_activate_page_drain(cpu)) { INIT_WORK(work, lru_add_drain_per_cpu); schedule_work_on(cpu, work); cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &has_work); } }
for_each_cpu(cpu, &has_work) flush_work(&per_cpu(lru_add_drain_work, cpu));
put_online_cpus(); mutex_unlock(&lock); }
-- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com
| |