From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755529Ab3CLPHO (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:07:14 -0400 Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:45461 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754704Ab3CLPHN (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:07:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:06:33 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Tejun Heo Cc: laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] writeback: convert writeback to unbound workqueue Message-ID: <20130312150633.GZ25165@kernel.dk> References: <1362692649-25570-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1362692649-25570-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 07 2013, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > There's no reason for writeback to implement its own worker pool when > using workqueue is much simpler and more efficient. This patchset > replaces writeback's custom worker pool with unbound workqueue and > also exports it to userland using WQ_SYSFS so that it can be tuned > from userland as requested a couple releases ago. > > This patchset contains the following four patches. > > 0001-implement-current_is_workqueue_rescuer.patch > 0002-writeback-remove-unused-bdi_pending_list.patch > 0003-writeback-replace-custom-worker-pool-implementation-.patch > 0004-writeback-expose-the-bdi_wq-workqueue.patch > > 0001-0002 are prep patches. 0003 does the conversion. 0004 makes > bdi_wq visible to userland. > > This patchset is on top of v3.9-rc1 + "workqueue: implement workqueue > with custom worker attributes" patchset[1] and available in the > following git branch. > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git review-writeback-conversion I like it, diffstat looks nice too :-) Have you done any performance testing, or just functional verification? -- Jens Axboe