From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753778AbbEAKRm (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2015 06:17:42 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:35424 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753515AbbEAKRj (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2015 06:17:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 03:17:37 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ming Lei Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Justin M. Forbes" , Jeff Moyer , "v4.0" , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] block: loop: avoiding too many pending per work I/O Message-ID: <20150501101737.GA18577@infradead.org> References: <1430450881-10881-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1430450881-10881-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 11:28:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > If there are too many pending per work I/O, too many > high priority work thread can be generated so that > system performance can be effected. > > This patch limits the max pending per work I/O as 16, > and will fackback to single queue mode when the max > number is reached. Why would you do this fall back? Shouldn't we just communicate a concurrency limit to the workqueue code?