[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9942.1254401629@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:53:49 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHSET] workqueue: implement concurrency managed workqueue
Sounds interesting as a replacement for slow-work. Some thoughts for you:
The most important features of slow-work are:
(1) Work items are not re-entered whilst they are executing.
(2) The slow-work facility keeps references on its work items by asking the
client to get and put on the client's refcount.
(3) The slow-work facility can create a lot more threads than the number of
CPUs on a system, and the system doesn't grind to a halt if they're all
taken up with long term I/O (performing several mkdirs for example).
I think you have (1) and (3) covered, but I'm unsure about (2).
Also, does it actually make sense to bind threads that are performing
long-term I/O to particular CPUs? Threads that are going to spend a lot more
time sleeping on disk I/O than actually running on a CPU?
David
--
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