[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130731012434.GA1504@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:24:34 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
neilb@...e.de, djbw@...com
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] raid5: offload stripe handle to workqueue
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:57:51AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:07:08PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > Ok, I should explain here. I can't add a work_struct for each stripe, because
> > this will stress workqueue very hard. My system handles > 1M/s stripes, which
> > makes workqueue pool lock contended very hard.
>
> It doesn't have to be embedding work_struct in each stripe and
> schduling them altogether. It's more about scheduling "work units"
> rather than "workers" - ie. letting each scheduled work item handle
> single work unit rather than making it dispatch multiple work items.
> It may make controlling concurrency a bit more interesting but you can
> always do it with workqueue_set_max_active(), which is the intended
> usage anyway.
stripe is the work unit actually. As I said, if I queue a work for each stripe,
just queue_work() will make the system blast because of the pwq->pool->lock
contention. dispatching one work has another side effect that I can't add block
plug. Since this is the queue stage concurrency problem,
workqueue_set_max_active() doesn't help.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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