Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:40:21 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/10] workqueue: use cpu_possible_mask instead of cpu_active_mask to break affinity |
| |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:54:49PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > There might be other CPU online. The workers losing binding on its CPU > > should have chance to work on those later onlined CPUs. > > > > Fixes: 06249738a41a ("workqueue: Manually break affinity on hotplug") > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com> > > --- > > kernel/workqueue.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > > index aba71ab359dd..1f5b8385c0cf 100644 > > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > > @@ -4909,8 +4909,9 @@ static void unbind_workers(int cpu) > > > > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock); > > > > + /* don't rely on the scheduler to force break affinity for us. */ > > for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_active_mask) < 0); > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_possible_mask) < 0); > > Please explain this one.. it's not making sense. Also the Changelog > doesn't seem remotely related to the actual change. > > Afaict this is actively wrong.
I think I was too tired, I see what you're doing now and it should work fine, I still think the changelog could use help though.
| |