linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] writeback: convert writeback to unbound workqueue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:10:37 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	laijs@...fujitsu.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] writeback: convert writeback to unbound workqueue

Hey, Jens.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:06:33PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git review-writeback-conversion
> 
> I like it, diffstat looks nice too :-)
> 
> Have you done any performance testing, or just functional verification?

Only functional test at this point.  I'm buliding NUMA awareness to
workqueue and planning on doing comparison of before-wq, after-wq,
after-wq-with-NUMA-awareness.  I don't expect any tangible difference
between before-wq and after-wq tho.  It would be great if someone can
recommend me a test scenario which can emphasize CPU overhead of
writeback tasks.  Any ideas?

Thanks.

-- 
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/