Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1426682
| From | Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] gpu: host1x: hw: intr_hw: Remove create_workqueue |
| Date | 2016-06-20 17:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rM99v-1sR-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rLkqm-26g-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 02:36:32PM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote: > System workqueues have been able to handle high level of concurrency > for a long time now and there's no reason to use dedicated workqueues > just to gain concurrency. Since the workqueue host->intr_wq is involved > in sync point interrupts, and sync point wait and is not being used on > a memory reclaim path, dedicated host->intr_wq has been replaced with the > use of system_wq. > > Unlike a dedicated per-cpu workqueue created with create_workqueue(), > system_wq allows multiple work items to overlap executions even on > the same CPU; however, a per-cpu workqueue doesn't have any CPU > locality or global ordering guarantees unless the target CPU is > explicitly specified and thus the increase of local concurrency > shouldn't make any difference. > > cancel_work_sync() has been used in _host1x_free_syncpt_irq() to ensure > that no work is pending by the time exit path runs. Alternatively, this could have used alloc_workqueue() w/o WQ_MEM_RECLAIM and used it just as a flush domain. Either way is fine. Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Thanks. -- tejun
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2] gpu: host1x: hw: intr_hw: Remove create_workqueue Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 11:10 +0200 Re: [PATCH v2] gpu: host1x: hw: intr_hw: Remove create_workqueue Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-06-20 17:20 +0200
csiph-web