From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932980Ab3CLRKn (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:10:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f42.google.com ([209.85.160.42]:57687 "EHLO mail-pb0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932709Ab3CLRKm (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:10:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:10:37 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Jens Axboe Cc: laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com, Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] writeback: convert writeback to unbound workqueue Message-ID: <20130312171037.GO24522@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1362692649-25570-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20130312150633.GZ25165@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130312150633.GZ25165@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey, Jens. On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:06:33PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > 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? Only functional test at this point. I'm buliding NUMA awareness to workqueue and planning on doing comparison of before-wq, after-wq, after-wq-with-NUMA-awareness. I don't expect any tangible difference between before-wq and after-wq tho. It would be great if someone can recommend me a test scenario which can emphasize CPU overhead of writeback tasks. Any ideas? Thanks. -- tejun