Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idleworkers

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Fri Jul 20 2012 - 13:08:01 EST

Hello, Peter.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 07:01:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 09:52 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Ooh, yeah, I agree. That's next on the wq to-do list. The problem is
> > that queue_work() is implemented in terms of queue_work_on().
> But that's trivial to fix, both could use __queue_work() without too
> much bother, right?

Hmmm? Not really. We need to keep count of the ones which reqested
fixed binding - ie. the ones which explicitly used queue_work_on() -
and then flush on wq CPU_DOWN. Then, we need to audit the current
users which are using queue_work{_on}() + explicit FLUSH on CPU_DOWN
and convert them.

> > The assumption was that they should flush during CPU_DOWN but it
> > probably will be much better to require users which need CPU affinity
> > to always use queue_work_on() - instead of implicit local affinity
> > from queue_work() - and flush them automatically from wq callback.
> Right, and when you create this new mode, which you need to know to
> flush on DOWN, you can simply put a BUG_ON in queue_work_on() when this
> mode is set.

BUG_ON() on queue_work_on()? Do you mean if the target CPU is down?
If so, yeah, I'd probably go with WARN_ON_ONCE() but we should whine
on it.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at