From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o88ASAnx029697 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 05:28:10 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4BEFC12D943A for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hera.kernel.org (hera.kernel.org [140.211.167.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id GE8W0n4DSOl3rKWq for ; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C876558.4050301@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:28:40 +0200 From: Tejun Heo MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [2.6.36-rc3] Workqueues, XFS, dependencies and deadlocks References: <20100907072954.GM705@dastard> <4C86003B.6090706@kernel.org> <20100907100108.GN705@dastard> <4C861582.6080102@kernel.org> <20100907124850.GP705@dastard> <4C865CC4.9070701@kernel.org> <20100908073428.GR705@dastard> <4C87474B.3050405@kernel.org> <20100908082819.GV705@dastard> <4C874D55.6080402@kernel.org> <20100908101222.GY705@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20100908101222.GY705@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: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Hello, On 09/08/2010 12:12 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > Ok, so in this case if this was on CPU 1, I'd see kworker[1:0], > kworker[1:1] and kworker[1:2] threads all accumulate CPU time? I'm > just trying to relate your example it to behaviour I've seen to > check if I understand the example correctly. Yes, you're right. If all three works just burn CPU cycles for 5ms then you'll only see one kworker w/ 15ms of accumulated CPU time. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs