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.
I think if I add in a new tunable to make the workqueue bound or unbound like I
mentioned in the other thread then I think it will do what you want for both
review comments.
