workqueue: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on queue_delayed_work
When __queue_delayed_work() is called, it chooses a cpu for handling the timer interrupt. As of today, it will pick either the cpu passed as parameter or the last cpu used for this. This is not good if a system does use CPU isolation, because it can take away some valuable cpu time to: 1 - deal with the timer interrupt, 2 - schedule-out the desired task, 3 - queue work on a random workqueue, and 4 - schedule the desired task back to the cpu. So to fix this, during __queue_delayed_work(), if cpu isolation is in place, pick a random non-isolated cpu to handle the timer interrupt. As an optimization, if the current cpu is not isolated, use it instead of looking for another candidate. Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
07daa99b7f
commit
aae17ebb53
|
@ -2362,10 +2362,18 @@ static void __queue_delayed_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
|
|||
dwork->cpu = cpu;
|
||||
timer->expires = jiffies + delay;
|
||||
|
||||
if (unlikely(cpu != WORK_CPU_UNBOUND))
|
||||
if (housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_TIMER)) {
|
||||
/* If the current cpu is a housekeeping cpu, use it. */
|
||||
cpu = smp_processor_id();
|
||||
if (!housekeeping_test_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TIMER))
|
||||
cpu = housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER);
|
||||
add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
|
||||
else
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
if (likely(cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND))
|
||||
add_timer(timer);
|
||||
else
|
||||
add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/**
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue