[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/uQdXp8ioY1WQEp@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 07:01:41 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
Linux Btrfs Mailing List <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Fsdevel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Introducing `wq_cpu_set` mount option for
btrfs
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:02:53PM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an RFC patchset that introduces the `wq_cpu_set` mount option.
> This option lets the user specify a CPU set that the Btrfs workqueues
> will use.
>
> Btrfs workqueues can slow sensitive user tasks down because they can use
> any online CPU to perform heavy workloads on an SMP system. Add a mount
> option to isolate the Btrfs workqueues to a set of CPUs. It is helpful
> to avoid sensitive user tasks being preempted by Btrfs heavy workqueues.
>
> This option is similar to the taskset bitmask except that the comma
> separator is replaced with a dot. The reason for this is that the mount
> option parser uses commas to separate mount options.
Hmm... the allowed cpumasks for unbounded workqueues can already be set
through /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/cpumask and also each individual
workqueue can be exposed in the matching subdirectory by setting WQ_SYSFS.
Wouldn't the proposed btrfs option be a bit reduandant?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists