| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090819171510.68bef78f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:15:10 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Mark Lord <liml@....ca>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: use single threaded work queue > Are work threads per workqueue? Combined with per-cpu binding, > dynamic thread pool per workqueue can get quite messy. All three > factors end up getting multiplied - ie. #cpus * pool_size which can be > enlarged by the same work hopping around * #workqueues. Stop a moment. Exactly how many work queue users need per cpu binding wizardry ? > Another problem is that if we apply this to the existing default > workqueue which is used by many different supposed-to-be-short works > in essentially batch mode, we might end up enlarging cache footprint > by scheduling unnecessarily many threads, which, in tight situations, > might show up as small but noticeable performance regression. Only if you make the default assumed max wait time for the work too low - its a tunable behaviour in fact. Alan -- 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