[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: workqueue_set_max_active(wq, 0)?

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 07:43:40PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hm, good point. We can't abstract out all of it -- the freezer API
> doesn't want to wait for it to finish -- but probably a bit of it.
> How do you iterate workqueues? We'd have to do that for the freezer
> part, unless we want to work on CWQs again.

By Locking workqueue_lock and walking workqueues list. Hmmm...

> Actually I'm not really sure I understand the differences between WQ,
> CWQ and GCWQ...

WQ is workqueue - the part visible to users.

CWQ is cpu workqueue. Each wq has its own set of cpu workqueues for
all CPUs (there are exceptions but this should be a good enough
explanation). A WQ is always a set of cwq's. WQ chooses which CWQ to
use on queue but most of actual processing happens on CWQs.

GCWQ stands for global cpu workqueue - there's one for each CPU. This
is per-cpu global worker pool used by all workqueues. Every CWQ on a
CPU shares the GCWQ on that CPU.

The reason why FREEZING currently is on GCWQ is because freezing is a
system wide operation. If we're gonna implement pause, I think it
should probably be in cwq.

> > I think it would be great if this can be abstracted out so that both
> > the freezer and explicit pausing use the same facility. They aren't
> > that different after all.
> I'll take a look tomorrow. If you want to beat me to it ... ;-)

Heh heh, [un]fortunately, I'm pretty occupied at the moment. :P

Thank you.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-15 20:15    [W:0.036 / U:43.624 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site