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 9533429DFD for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:07:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742318F8037 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JDPNOXwYyz7RY42H for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52183194.2060008@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:07:48 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: does having ~Ncore+1? kworkers flushing XFS to 1 disk improve throughput? References: <52181B69.6060707@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: <52181B69.6060707@tlinx.org> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.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: Linda Walsh Cc: xfs-oss On 8/23/2013 9:33 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > So what are all the kworkers doing and does having 6 of them > do things at the same time really help disk-throughput? > > Seems like they would conflict w/each other, cause > disk contention, and extra fragmentation as they > do things? If they were all writing to separate > disks, that would make sense, but do that many kworker > threads need to be finishing out disk I/O on 1 disk? https://raw.github.com/torvalds/linux/master/Documentation/workqueue.txt -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs