[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130318223244.GA11188@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:32:44 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, laijs@...fujitsu.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] writeback: replace custom worker pool
implementation with unbound workqueue
On Tue 12-03-13 16:05:10, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 07-03-13 13:44:08, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Writeback implements its own worker pool - each bdi can be associated
> > with a worker thread which is created and destroyed dynamically. The
> > worker thread for the default bdi is always present and serves as the
> > "forker" thread which forks off worker threads for other bdis.
> >
> > there's no reason for writeback to implement its own worker pool when
> > using unbound workqueue instead is much simpler and more efficient.
> > This patch replaces custom worker pool implementation in writeback
> > with an unbound workqueue.
I realized there may be one issue - so far we have a clear identification
which thread works for which bdi in the thread name (flush-x:y naming).
That was useful when debugging things. Now with your worker pool this is
lost, am I right? Would it be possible to restore that?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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