linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based nfsd

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20141202192655.GL10918@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Tue, 2 Dec 2014 14:26:55 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
Cc:	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based
 nfsd

On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:18:14PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
...
> unbound.  If strict cpu locality is likely to be beneficial and each
> work item isn't likely to consume huge amount of cpu cycles,
> WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE would fit better; otherwise, WQ_UNBOUND to let the
> scheduler do its thing.

Hmmm... but you're already using WQ_UNBOUND.  Concurrency management
doesn't matter for unbound workqueues.  They really just behave as
shared worker thread pools.  Does turning on WQ_HIGHPRI change
anything?  Workqueue always prefers hot workers which can lead to the
hot ones being penalized for consuming too much CPU time.

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/