[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A8BFDE2.1010904@garzik.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:28:02 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, htejun@...il.com,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: use single threaded work queue
>>> It would be nice to just create these threads on-demand,
>>> and destroy them again after periods of dis-use.
>>> Kind of like how Apache does worker threads.
>>
>> Well, that's the same thread pool suggestion that Jeff came up with. And
>> I agree, that's a nicer long term solution (it's also how the per-bdi
>> flushing replacement works). The problem with that appears to be that
>> any suggested patchset for thread pools spiral into certain "but what
>> color should it be?!" death.
>
> Let people complain with code :) libata has two basic needs in this area:
> (1) specifying a thread count other than "1" or "nr-cpus"
> (2) don't start unneeded threads / idle out unused threads
To be even more general,
libata needs a workqueue or thread pool that can
(a) scale up to nr-drives-that-use-pio threads, on demand
(b) scale down to zero threads, with lack of demand
That handles the worst case of each PIO-polling drive needing to sleep
(thus massively impacting latency, if any other PIO-polling drive must
wait for a free thread).
That also handles the best case of not needing any threads at all.
Jeff
--
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