Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the cgroup tree got a conflict in:
kernel/workqueue.c
between commit:
4a6c5607d450 ("workqueue: Make sure that wq_unbound_cpumask is never empty")
from the workqueues tree and commit:
fe28f631fa94 ("workqueue: Add workqueue_unbound_exclude_cpumask() to exclude CPUs from wq_unbound_cpumask")
from the cgroup 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 2989b57e154a,2fc585d3d6ca..000000000000
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@@ -6542,11 -6606,14 +6614,14 @@@ void __init workqueue_init_early(void
BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct pool_workqueue) < __alignof__(long long));
BUG_ON(!alloc_cpumask_var(&wq_unbound_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL));
+ BUG_ON(!alloc_cpumask_var(&wq_requested_unbound_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL));
+ BUG_ON(!zalloc_cpumask_var(&wq_isolated_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL));
- cpumask_copy(wq_unbound_cpumask, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_WQ));
- cpumask_and(wq_unbound_cpumask, wq_unbound_cpumask, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN));
-
+ cpumask_copy(wq_unbound_cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);
+ restrict_unbound_cpumask("HK_TYPE_WQ", housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_WQ));
+ restrict_unbound_cpumask("HK_TYPE_DOMAIN", housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN));
if (!cpumask_empty(&wq_cmdline_cpumask))
- cpumask_and(wq_unbound_cpumask, wq_unbound_cpumask, &wq_cmdline_cpumask);
+ restrict_unbound_cpumask("workqueue.unbound_cpus", &wq_cmdline_cpumask);
+ cpumask_copy(wq_requested_unbound_cpumask, wq_unbound_cpumask);
pwq_cache = KMEM_CACHE(pool_workqueue, SLAB_PANIC);
Attachment:
pgpvMaVUMofPs.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
