From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p7P5K7O7163656 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:20:07 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A3540111019 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 3VB7N1D6HbTDJHCF for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:20:04 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: use per-filesystem I/O completion workqueues Message-ID: <20110825052004.GB5617@infradead.org> References: <20110824055924.139283426@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110824060150.001321834@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110825004811.GK3162@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110825004811.GK3162@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:48:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > The only issue I see with this is that it brings back per-filesystem > workqueue threads. Because all the workqueues are defined with > MEM_RECLAIM, there is a rescuer thread per workqueue that is used > when the CWMQ cannot allocate memory to queue the work to the > appropriate per-cpu queue. Not much we can do about it. > If we are going to block here, then we probably should increase the > per-cpu concurrency of the work queue so that we can continue to > process other ioends while this one is blocked. True. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs