Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 3/4] workqueue: Schedule work on non-idle cpuinstead of current one

From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon Jan 07 2013 - 13:07:11 EST

[Removed Suresh and Venki from discussion, they switched their companies

On 7 January 2013 20:34, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The latter part "not using idle cpu just for processing work" does
> apply to homogeneous systems too but as I wrote earlier work items
> don't spontaneously happen on an idle core. Something, including
> timer, needs to kick it. So, by definition, a CPU already isn't idle
> when a work item starts execution on it. What am I missing here?

We are talking about a core being idle from schedulers perspective :)

>> I have another idea that we can try:
>> queue_work_on_any_cpu().
>> With this we would not break any existing code and can try to migrate
>> old users to
>> this new infrastructure (atleast the ones which are rearming works from their
>> work_handlers). What do you say?
> Yeah, this could be a better solution, I think. Plus, it's not like
> finding the optimal cpu is free.

Thanks for the first part (When i shared this idea with Vincent and Amit, i
wasn't sure at all about the feedback i will get from you and others, but i
am very happy now :) ).

I couldn't understand the second part. We still need to search for a free cpu
for this new routine. And the implementation would almost be same as the
implementation of queue_work() in my initial patch

>> To take care of the cache locality issue, we can pass an argument to
>> this routine,
>> that can provide
>> - the mask of cpus to schedule this work on
>> OR
>> - Sched Level (SD_LEVEL) of cpus to run it.
> Let's start simple for now. If we really need it, we can always add
> more later.

Agreed. But i liked the idea from steven, we can have two routines:
queue_work_on_any_cpu() and queue_work_on_cpus()
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