[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201109140141.GE7496@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 09:01:41 -0500
From: "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>
Cc: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"neilb@...e.de" <neilb@...e.de>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"mhocko@...e.com" <mhocko@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] workqueue: honour cond_resched() more effectively.
Hello,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 01:50:40PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > I'm thinking the real problem is that you're abusing workqueues. Just
> > don't stuff so much work into it that this becomes a problem. Or
> > rather,
> > if you do, don't lie to it about it.
>
> If we can't use workqueues to call iput_final() on an inode, then what
> is the point of having them at all?
>
> Neil's use case is simply a file that has managed to accumulate a
> seriously large page cache, and is therefore taking a long time to
> complete the call to truncate_inode_pages_final(). Are you saying we
> have to allocate a dedicated thread for every case where this happens?
I think the right thing to do here is setting CPU_INTENSIVE or using an
unbound workqueue. Concurrency controlled per-cpu workqueue is unlikely to
be a good fit if the work can run long enough to need cond_resched(). Better
to let the scheduler handle it. Making workqueue warn against long-running
concurrency managed per-cpu work items would be great. I'll put that on my
todo list but if anyone is interested please be my guest.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists