On 2/10/21 12:43 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 2/10/21 2:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> struct se_device *se_dev = se_cmd->se_dev;
>>> - int cpu = se_cmd->cpuid;
>>> + int cpu;
>>> +
>>> + if (se_cmd->se_cmd_flags & SCF_IGNORE_CPUID_COMPL)
>>> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>> + else
>>> + cpu = se_cmd->cpuid;
>>>
>>> target_queue_cmd_work(&se_dev->queues[cpu].cq, se_cmd, cpu,
>>> target_completion_wq);
>>
>> Can't we just use se_cmd->cpuid == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND as the no affinity
>> indicator, which would remove all branches here.
>
> We can't right now because the workqueue_struct does
> not have the WQ_UNBOUND bit set. __queue_work will then do:
>
> /* pwq which will be used unless @work is executing elsewhere */
> if (wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND) {
> if (req_cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND)
> cpu = wq_select_unbound_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id());
> pwq = unbound_pwq_by_node(wq, cpu_to_node(cpu));
> } else {
> if (req_cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND)
> cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> pwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_pwqs, cpu);
> }
>
> so even if you pass in WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, it will do raw_smp_processor_id
> and add the work to the cpu's worker pool.
Nevermind. What I wrote is exactly what you asked for :) I can do that.
