[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C2A2688.1020206@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:59:52 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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, 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, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/35] async: use workqueue for worker pool
Hello, Arjan.
On 06/29/2010 06:40 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> uh? clearly the assumption is that if I have a 16 CPU machine, and 12
> items of work get scheduled,
> that we get all 12 running in parallel. All the smarts of cmwq surely
> only kick in once you've reached the
> "one work item per cpu" threshold ???
Hmmm... workqueue workers are bound to certain cpu, so if you schedule
a work on a specific CPU, it will run there. Once a cpu gets
saturated, the issuing thread will be moved elsewhere. I don't think
it matters to any of the current async users one way or the other,
would it?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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