From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40C97F4E for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 06:11:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42568F8035 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:11:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com [67.231.145.42]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id FoUCEhJQbzDzURNZ (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:11:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:10:59 -0500 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for m_log_workqueue Message-ID: <20151105121059.GJ5458@ret.masoncoding.com> References: <20151104185103.GC5458@ret.masoncoding.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151104185103.GC5458@ret.masoncoding.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Tejun Heo On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 01:51:03PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > I think we should be using WQ_MEM_RECLAIM to make sure this thread pool > makes progress when we're not able to allocate new workers. Thinking harder, it's probably best to just flag them all WQ_MEM_RECLAIM. This is what btrfs does, and it saves you from painful discoveries about how different queues depend on each other. Tejun did verify in the dump that progress on m_log_workqueue was stuck waiting for more threads. I'll start testing and send a v2. -chris _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs