Hello, Paul. On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:21:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > The code was previously using both system_power_efficient_wq and > > system_workqueue (for the expedited path). I guess the options were > > either using two workqueues or dropping POWER_EFFICIENT. I have no > > idea how big an impact this will make or whether it'd even be > > noticeable but maybe it'd be worthwhile to mention that in the > > description? > > Good point! How about if I change the last paragraph of the commit > log to read as follows? > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This commit also causes SRCU to use this new RCU-specific > workqueue_struct. Note that SRCU's use of workqueues never blocks them > waiting for readers, so this should be safe from a forward-progress > viewpoint. Note that this moves SRCU from system_power_efficient_wq > to a normal workqueue. In the unlikely event that this results in > measurable degradation, a separate power-efficient workqueue will be > creates for SRCU. Sounds good. Please feel free to add Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
