[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527131254.GB7974@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:12:54 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: Add an API to create a singlethread
workqueue attached to the current task's cgroup
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> > > Add a new kernel API to create a singlethread workqueue and attach it's
> > > task to current task's cgroup and cpumask.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
> >
> > Could someone familiar with workqueue code please comment on whether
> > this patch is suitable for 2.6.35?
> >
> > It is needed to fix the case where vhost user might cause a kernel
> > thread to consume more CPU than allowed by the cgroup.
> > Should I merge it through the vhost tree?
> > Ack for this?
>
> I don't understand the reasons for this patch, but this doesn't matter.
Depending on userspace application, driver can create a lot of work
for a workqueue to handle. By making the workqueue thread
belong in a cgroup, we make it possible to the CPU and other
resources thus consumed.
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists