Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 May 2014 15:29:08 +0800 | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Allow changing attributions of ordered workqueues |
| |
On 05/17/2014 12:16 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> @@ -3708,6 +3712,13 @@ static void rcu_free_pwq(struct rcu_head *rcu) > container_of(rcu, struct pool_workqueue, rcu)); > } > > +static struct pool_workqueue *oldest_pwq(struct workqueue_struct *wq) > +{ > + return list_last_entry(&wq->pwqs, struct pool_workqueue, pwqs_node); > +} > + > +static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq);
Hi, Tejun,
Should we reorder the pwq_adjust_max_active() to avoid this declare? (Move pwq_adjust_max_active() to the place just before rcu_free_pwq())
Thanks, Lai
> + > /* > * Scheduled on system_wq by put_pwq() when an unbound pwq hits zero refcnt > * and needs to be destroyed. > @@ -3723,14 +3734,12 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work) > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))) > return; > > - /* > - * Unlink @pwq. Synchronization against wq->mutex isn't strictly > - * necessary on release but do it anyway. It's easier to verify > - * and consistent with the linking path. > - */ > mutex_lock(&wq->mutex); > list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node); > is_last = list_empty(&wq->pwqs); > + /* try to activate the oldest pwq when needed */ > + if (!is_last && (wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED)) > + pwq_adjust_max_active(oldest_pwq(wq)); > mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex); > > mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
| |