[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091001090137.GE15345@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:01:37 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
jeff@...zik.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHSET] workqueue: implement concurrency managed
workqueue
* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > My main worry is that in practice workqueues arent all that performance
> > critical - so we are shooting to optimize something that doesnt
> > necessarily use all the potential goodness inherent in this approach.
>
> Well, the main problem with the current code is that per-cpu
> workqueues are way abused. I don't look at this patchset from a
> performance point of view, but rather a way to limit this huge number
> of idle and pointless threads. [...]
I do look at it as a potentially (and primarily) big performance feature
- if only it was utilized in a place where the performance aspect
mattered.
Sure, the memory savings are nice too.
Ingo
--
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