[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05fe8027e0f447d3249d423d843f943c3974489b.camel@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 20:08:42 +0000
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...a.com>
To: "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"dhavale@...gle.com" <dhavale@...gle.com>
CC: "nhuck@...gle.com" <nhuck@...gle.com>,
"brho@...gle.com" <brho@...gle.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>,
"agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"joshdon@...gle.com" <joshdon@...gle.com>,
"briannorris@...omium.org" <briannorris@...omium.org>,
"snitzer@...nel.org" <snitzer@...nel.org>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"void@...ifault.com" <void@...ifault.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue
execution locality
On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 10:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I really hate how we have random drivers and filesystems doing random
> workarounds for "kthread workers don't work well enough, so add
> random
> tweaks".
Part of this seems to be due to the way CFS works.
CFS policy seems to make sense for a lot of workloads, but
there are some cases with kworkers where the CFS policies
just don't work quite right. Unfortunately the scheduler
problem space is not all that well explored, and it isn't
clear what the desired behavior of a scheduler should be
in every case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists