[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150727184840.GB16393@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:48:40 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kmod: Cleanups, simplifications, and make isolation
friendly v3
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 06:27:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Hence those two debatable changes:
>
> _ We would like to use generic workqueues. System unbound workqueues are
> a very good candidate but they are not wide affine, only node affine.
> Now probably a node is enough to perform many parallel kmod jobs.
If being node-affine is an issue, kmod can easily create a workqueue
w/o NUMA affinity using apply_workqueue_attrs() with no_numa set to
%true.
> _ We would like to remove the wait_for_helper kernel thread (UMH_WAIT_PROC
> handler) to use the workqueue. It means that if the workqueue blocks,
> and no other worker can take pending kmod request, we can be screwed.
> Now if we have 512 threads, this should be enough.
The maximum number of worker can also be raised on the workqueue.
That said, I don't think we want to.
IMHO, system_wq should be fine and if it isn't turning off numa
affinity or raising max worker limit later is pretty trivial.
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