[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8g5tR8tup8LHbb7@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:25:57 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>
Cc: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>,
Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Add WQ_SCHED_FIFO
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:22:32AM -0800, Sandeep Dhavale wrote:
> If with the kernel config option, every WQ_HIGHPRI is elevated to
> sched_fifo_low, wouldn't that be kind of defeating the purpose? Having
> another class for even more urgent work is better in my opinion.
I mean, everybody thinks their work items are the most important. Even with
explicit FIFO, you're still gonna have similar problems as people crowd that
flag. If this is a concern, please benchmark with realistic scenarios and
consider other options (e.g. maybe that problematic workqueue doesn't need
to be HIGHPRI or should be split somehow). Right now, I don't think there
are enough justifications for adding another level.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists