[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C874D55.6080402@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:46:13 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.36-rc3] Workqueues, XFS, dependencies and deadlocks
Hello,
On 09/08/2010 10:28 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> They may if necessary to keep the workqueue progressing.
>
> Ok, so the normal case is that they will all be processed local to the
> CPU they were queued on, like the old workqueue code?
Bound workqueues always process works locally. Please consider the
following scenario.
w0, w1, w2 are queued to q0 on the same CPU. w0 burns CPU for 5ms
then sleeps for 10ms then burns CPU for 5ms again then finishes. w1
and w2 sleeps for 10ms.
The following is what happens with the original workqueue (ignoring
all other tasks and processing overhead).
TIME IN MSECS EVENT
0 w0 burns CPU
5 w0 sleeps
15 w0 wakes and burns CPU
20 w0 finishes, w1 starts and sleeps
30 w1 finishes, w2 starts and sleeps
40 w2 finishes
With cmwq if @max_active >= 3,
TIME IN MSECS EVENT
0 w0 burns CPU
5 w0 sleeps, w1 starts and sleeps, w2 starts and sleeps
15 w0 wakes and burns CPU, w1 finishes, w2 finishes
20 w0 finishes
IOW, cmwq assigns a new worker when there are more work items to
process but no work item is currently in progress on the CPU. Please
note that this behavior is across *all* workqueues. It doesn't matter
which work item belongs to which workqueue.
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