Hey, Lai. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:04:19AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > example: > node0(cpu0,cpu1),node1(cpu2,cpu3), > wq's cpumask: 1,3 > the pwq of this wq on the node1's cpumask: 3 > current online cpu: 0-2. > so the cpumask of worker tasks of the pwq on node1 is actually cpu_all_mask. > so the work scheduled from cpu2 can be executed on cpu0 or cpu2. > we expect it is executed on cpu1 only. Ah, right. I was hoping to avoid doing pwq swaps on CPU hot[un]plugs doing everything on possible mask. Looks like we'll need some massaging after all. > It can be fixed by swapping pwqs(node's pwq <-> default pwq) > when cpuhotplug. But could you reschedule this patchset to wq/for-3.11? We're still only at -rc4 meaning we still have plenty of time to resolve whatever issues which come up, so I think I'm still gonna target 3.10. > the whole patchset is more complicated than my brain. It isn't that complex, is it? I mean, the difficult part - using multiple pwqs on unbound wq - already happened, and even that wasn't too complex as it in most part synchronized the behaviors between per-cpu and unbound workqueues. All that NUMA support is doing is mapping different pwqs to different issuing CPUs. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
