From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Multi-device update Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:26:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20080416182650.GN12774@kernel.dk> References: <200804161134.19237.chris.mason@oracle.com> <200804161254.09414.chris.mason@oracle.com> <87fxtlitle.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <200804161404.04202.chris.mason@oracle.com> <48064114.5080304@firstfloor.org> <20080416181438.GM12774@kernel.dk> <48064469.2090208@firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Mason , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48064469.2090208@firstfloor.org> List-ID: On Wed, Apr 16 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > There have been various implementations of queue_work_on() posted > > through the years, I've had one version that I've used off and on for a > > long time: > > queue_work_on is the wrong interface I think. You rather > want a pool of non pinned threads that are then load balanced by the > scheduler (who knows best what cpus have cycles available) Yeah, that actually sounds like the best interface. What I described typically ends up trying to be too clever, you really want to leave any scheduling decisions to the scheduler. -- Jens Axboe