[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240118164839.GK939255@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:48:39 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
Ronald Monthero <debug.penguin32@...il.com>, sjenning@...hat.com,
ddstreet@...e.org, vitaly.wool@...sulko.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, chrisl@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zswap: Improve with alloc_workqueue() call
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:16:08AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 5:32 AM Ronald Monthero
> > > > @@ -1620,7 +1620,8 @@ static int zswap_setup(void)
> > > > zswap_enabled = false;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - shrink_wq = create_workqueue("zswap-shrink");
> > > > + shrink_wq = alloc_workqueue("zswap-shrink",
> > > > + WQ_UNBOUND|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1);
> What could make a difference though is the increased concurrency by
> switching max_active from 1 to 0. This could cause a higher rate of
> shrinker runs, which might increase lock contention and reclaim
> volume. That part would be good to double check with the shrinker
> benchmarks.
Nevermind, I clearly can't read.
Could still be worthwhile testing with the default 0, but it's not a
concern in the patch as-is.
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists