On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:37:52AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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> Done, thank you! Thanx, Paul -- 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
