linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: concurrency managed workqueue, take#6

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]

Message-ID: <20100628231812.GC10104@nowhere>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:18:14 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
	dwalker@...eaurora.org, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de,
	florian@...kler.org, andi@...stfloor.org, mst@...hat.com,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: concurrency managed workqueue, take#6

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:03:48PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> B. General documentation of Concurrency Managed Workqueue (cmwq)
> ================================================================


It would be nice to get this in Documentation/workqueue-design.txt,
as the design is complicated enough to deserve this file :)



> == B-4. Concurrency managed shared worker pool
> 
> For any worker pool, managing the concurrency level (how many workers
> are executing simultaneously) is an important issue.  cmwq tries to
> keep the concurrency at minimal but sufficient level.
> 
> Concurrency management is implemented by hooking into the scheduler.
> The gcwq is notified whenever a busy worker wakes up or sleeps and
> keeps track of the level of concurrency.  Generally, works aren't
> supposed to be cpu cycle hogs and maintaining just enough concurrency
> to prevent work processing from stalling is optimal.  As long as
> there's one or more workers running on the cpu, no new worker is
> scheduled, but, when the last running worker blocks, the gcwq
> immediately schedules a new worker so that the cpu doesn't sit idle
> while there are pending works.
> 
> This allows using minimal number of workers without losing execution
> bandwidth.  Keeping idle workers around doesn't cost other than the
> memory space for kthreads, so cmwq holds onto idle ones for a while
> before killing them.
> 
> As multiple execution contexts are available for each wq, deadlocks
> around execution contexts is much harder to create.  The default wq,
> system_wq, has maximum concurrency level of 256 and unless there is a
> scenario which can result in a dependency loop involving more than 254
> workers, it won't deadlock.



Why this arbitrary limitation?

Thanks.

--
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/