[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/ewpGQkpWvOf7qh@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:29:56 +0000
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Yue Hu <huyue2@...lpad.com>,
Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] erofs: add per-cpu threads for decompression as an
option
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:33:22PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> From: Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>
>
> Using per-cpu thread pool we can reduce the scheduling latency compared
> to workqueue implementation. With this patch scheduling latency and
> variation is reduced as per-cpu threads are high priority kthread_workers.
>
> The results were evaluated on arm64 Android devices running 5.10 kernel.
I see that this patch was upstreamed. Meanwhile, commit c25da5b7baf1d
("dm verity: stop using WQ_UNBOUND for verify_wq") was also upstreamed.
Why is this more complex solution better than simply removing WQ_UNBOUND?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists