Re: [patch,v2] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusher threads

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Hello,

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 01:08:18PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > As for the original patch, I think it's a bit too much to expose to
> > userland.  It's probably a good idea to bind the flusher to the local
> > node but do we really need to expose an interface to let userland
> > control the affinity directly?  Do we actually have a use case at
> > hand?
> 
> Yeah, folks pinning realtime processes to a particular cpu don't want
> the flusher threads interfering with their latency.  I don't have any
> performance numbers on hand to convince you of the benefit, though.

What I don't get is, RT tasks win over bdi flushers every time and I'm
skeptical allowing bdi or not on a particular CPU would make a big
difference on non-RT kernels anyway.  If the use case calls for
stricter isolation, there's isolcpus.  While I can see why someone
might think that they need something like this, I'm not sure it's
actually something necessary.

And, even if it's actually something necessary, I think we'll probably
be better off with adding a mechanism to notify userland of new
kthreads and let userland adjust affinity using the usual mechanism
rather than adding dedicated knobs for each kthread users.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>