From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754995Ab2IUTkl (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:40:41 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:42011 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751604Ab2IUTkj (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:40:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:40:35 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Deepawali Verma Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Work queue questions Message-ID: <20120921194035.GK7264@google.com> References: <20120921174952.GF7264@google.com> <20120921183515.GI7264@google.com> <20120921192720.GJ7264@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Deepawali. On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:35:13PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote: > These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in parallel. I > am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between > writing these chunks one by one in single thread instead of trying to > write the data by scheduling the work on three different workqueues > means 3 worker threads? Workqueue is designed to supply sufficient concurrency for such use cases and it has been doing so for all other in-kernel users for quite some time now. If you're not getting concurrency in the above scenario, either you've found a bug in workqueue or you did something wrong. If you have a scenario not working for you, please post the code. Thanks. -- tejun