[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:32:26 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: concurrency managed workqueue, take#4
Hello,
On 02/28/2010 10:11 AM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> I gave the workqueue patches a spin on PowerPC. I'm particularly interested
> from an OS jitter perspective, and that these patches wont introduce more
> jitter. It looks like we reach a steady state of worker threads and arent
> continually creating and destroying them which is good. This could be a big
> deal on compute CPUs (CPUs isolated via isol_cpus or cpusets).
Yeap, it should reach a stable state very quickly.
> A few things I've found so far:
>
> 1. NR_CPUS > 32 causes issues with the workqueue debugfs code:
Heh heh, that's me using roundup_pow_of_two() where I should have used
order_base_2(). Fixed.
> 2. cifs needs to be converted:
>
> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c: In function ‘exit_cifs’:
> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:1067: error: ‘system_single_wq’ undeclared (first use in this function)
> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:1067: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:1067: error: for each function it appears in.)
Ah... right, fixed. Will soon update the git and patch tarball and
post the updated patches.
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists