[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120924200809.GC29689@google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:08:09 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Deepawali Verma <dverma249@...il.com>
Cc: Chinmay V S <cvs268@...il.com>,
Daniel Taylor <Daniel.Taylor@....com>,
anish singh <anish198519851985@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Work queue questions
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> May be I misunderstood, I read in the documentation about max_active.
> In this case, max_active is 1, but I created three workqueues, do you
I see. Why are you doing that? Is there ordering requirement? Why
not just use system_unbound_wq?
> mean to say for this case, single thread can process three requests
> queued up in the three different workqueues.
In the following execution log you posted,
kworker/u:1-21 [000] 110.964895: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 XStarted
kworker/u:1-21 [000] 110.964909: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 Xstopped
kworker/u:1-21 [000] 110.965137: task_event: MYTASKJOB2382 XStarted
kworker/u:1-21 [000] 110.965154: task_event: MYTASKJOB2382 Xstopped
kworker/u:5-3724 [000] 110.965311: task_event: MYTASKJOB2383 XStarted
kworker/u:5-3724 [000] 110.965325: task_event: MYTASKJOB2383 Xstopped
The first two got executed on the same worker thread but the third one
is on a different one. It really looks like you just don't have large
enough work for scheduler to interleave them or migrate workers to
different CPUs.
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