[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160331171435.GD24661@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:14:35 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michael Rapoport <RAPOPORT@...ibm.com>
Cc: Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues
Hello, Michael.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:17:13AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote:
> > There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound
> > workqueues. workqueue becomes a convenience thing which manages
> > worker pools and there shouldn't be any difference between workqueue
> > workers and kthreads in terms of behavior.
>
> I agree that there really shouldn't be any performance difference, but the
> tests I've run show otherwise. I have no idea why and I hadn't time yet to
> investigate it.
I'd be happy to help digging into what's going on. If kvm wants full
control over the worker thread, kvm can use workqueue as a pure
threadpool. Schedule a work item to grab a worker thread with the
matching attributes and keep using it as it'd a kthread. While that
wouldn't be able to take advantage of work item flushing and so on,
it'd still be a simpler way to manage worker threads and the extra
stuff like cgroup membership handling doesn't have to be duplicated.
> > > opportunity for optimization, at least for some workloads...
> >
> > What sort of optimizations are we talking about?
>
> Well, if we take Evlis (1) as for the theoretical base, there could be
> benefit of doing I/O scheduling inside the vhost.
Yeah, if that actually is beneficial, take full control of the
kworker thread.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists