Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the workqueues tree

[Leonardo Bras Soares Passos]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 11:54 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/workqueue.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   aae17ebb53cd ("workqueue: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on queue_delayed_work")
>
> from the workqueues tree and commit:
>
>   c0e8c5b59949 ("workqueue: Use global variant for add_timer()")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc kernel/workqueue.c
> index 65a27be81452,78eaea2e5d72..000000000000
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@@ -2545,18 -1958,10 +2545,18 @@@ static void __queue_delayed_work(int cp
>         dwork->cpu = cpu;
>         timer->expires = jiffies + delay;
>
>  -      if (unlikely(cpu != WORK_CPU_UNBOUND))
>  +      if (housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_TIMER)) {
>  +              /* If the current cpu is a housekeeping cpu, use it. */
>  +              cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  +              if (!housekeeping_test_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TIMER))
>  +                      cpu = housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER);
>                 add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
>  -      else
>  -              add_timer_global(timer);
>  +      } else {
>  +              if (likely(cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND))
> -                       add_timer(timer);
> ++                      add_timer_global(timer);
>  +              else
>  +                      add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
>  +      }
>   }
>
>   /**

Fix looks perfect.

Thanks Stephen!
Leo