Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue fixes for v4.3-rc5
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed Oct 14 2015 - 16:24:56 EST
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:10:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> At the same time, some of the same issues that are pushing people to
> move timers around (put idle cores to deeper sleeps etc) would also
> argue for moving delayed work around to other cpus if possible.
>
> So I agree that there is a push to make timer cpu targets more dynamic
> in a way we historically didn't really have. At the same time, I think
> the same forces that want to move timers around would actually likely
> want to move delayed work around too...
I fully agree. We gotta get this in order sooner or later. I'll try
to come up with a transition plan.
> > * This makes queue_delayed_work() behave differently from queue_work()
> > and when I checked years ago the local queueing guarantee was
> > definitely being depended upon by some users.
>
> Yes. But the delayed work really is different. By definition, we know
> that the current cpu is busy and active _right_now_, and so keeping
> work on that cpu isn't obviously wrong.
>
> But it's *not* obviously right to schedule something on that
> particular cpu a few seconds from now, when it might be happily asleep
> and there might be better cpus to bother..
But in terms of API consistency, it sucks to have queue_work()
guarantee local queueing but not queue_delayed_work(). The ideal
situation would be updating both so that neither guarantees. If that
turns out to be too painful, maybe we can rename queue_delayed_work()
so that it signifies its difference from queue_work(). Let's see.
> > I do want to get rid of the local queueing guarnatee for all work
> > items. That said, I don't think this is the right way to do it.
>
> Hmm. I guess that for being past rc5, taking your patch is the safe
> thing. I really don't like it very much, though.
Heh, yeah, I pondered about calling it a happy accident and just
sticking with the new behavior.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/