[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130123010758.GH5359@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:07:58 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: remove gcwq and make worker_pool the only
backend abstraction
Hey.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:37:02PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > It seems like we'll need to support worker pools with custom
> > attributes, which is planned to be implemented as extra worker_pools
> > for the unbound CPU. Removing gcwq and having worker_pool as the top
> > level abstraction makes things much simpler for such designs. Also,
> > there's scalability benefit to not sharing locking and busy hash among
> > different worker pools as worker pools w/ custom attributes are likely
> > to have widely different memory / cpu locality characteristics.
>
> Could you tell me why extra worker_pools with custom attributes are needed?
> Or could you give a reference link for this?
Currently, there are two expected users - writeback and crypto. The
former currently implements its own worker pool and the latter is
using per-cpu workqueue but not particularly happy with it. Being
bound to the issuing CPU seems a bit too limiting.
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