[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160103135839.GF3660@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 08:58:39 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jeff Epler <jepler@...ythonic.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] virtio_balloon: Use a workqueue instead of
"vballoon" kthread
Hello, Michael.
On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 11:36:03PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Why so? As long as the maximum concurrently used workers are not
> > high, 1/5 second or even a lot longer sleeps are completely fine.
>
> I always thought the right way to defer executing a work queue item
> is to queue delayed work, not sleep + queue work.
That works too and is preferable if there are gonna be a lot of work
items sleeping but it isn't different from any other blocking.
> Doing a sleep ties up one thread for 1/5 of a second, does it not?
It does.
> If so, as long as it's the only driver doing this, we'll be fine,
> but if many others copy this pattern, things will
> start to break, will they not?
The maximum concurrency on the system_wq is 256 which is pretty high,
so for most use cases, it's fine. If high concurrency is expected,
it's better to break it out to a separate workqueue.
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