From: Ping Gan <jacky_gam_2001@163.com>
To: hare@suse.de, hch@lst.de
Cc: ping.gan@dell.com, sagi@grimberg.me, kch@nvidia.com,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] nvmet: support unbound_wq for RDMA and TCP
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:49:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240719084953.8050-1-jacky_gam_2001@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <716c2c20-9471-4a37-9a75-c1bed7b30116@suse.de>
> On 7/19/24 10:07, Ping Gan wrote:
>>> On 7/19/24 07:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 05:14:49PM +0800, Ping Gan wrote:
>>>>> When running nvmf on SMP platform, current nvme target's RDMA and
>>>>> TCP use bounded workqueue to handle IO, but when there is other
>>>>> high
>>>>> workload on the system(eg: kubernetes), the competition between
>>>>> the
>>>>> bounded kworker and other workload is very radical. To decrease
>>>>> the
>>>>> resource race of OS among them, this patchset will enable
>>>>> unbounded
>>>>> workqueue for nvmet-rdma and nvmet-tcp; besides that, it can also
>>>>> get some performance improvement. And this patchset bases on
>>>>> previous
>>>>> discussion from below session.
>>>>
>>>> So why aren't we using unbound workqueues by default? Who makea
>>>> the
>>>> policy decision and how does anyone know which one to chose?
>>>>
>>> I'd be happy to switch to unbound workqueues per default.
>>> It actually might be a left over from the various workqueue changes;
>>> at one point 'unbound' meant that effectively only one CPU was used
>>> for the workqueue, and you had to remove the 'unbound' parameter to
>>> have the workqueue run on all CPUs. That has since changed, so I
>>> guess
>>> switching to unbound per default is the better option here.
>>
>> I don't fully understand what you said 'by default'. Did you mean we
>> should just remove 'unbounded' parameter and create workqueue by
>> WQ_UNBOUND flag or besides that, we should also add other parameter
>> to switch 'unbounded' workqueue to 'bounded' workqueue?
>>
> The former. Just remove the 'unbounded' parameter and always us
> 'WQ_UNBOUND' flag when creating workqueues.
Okay, will do in next version
Thanks,
Ping
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-19 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-17 9:14 [PATCH v2 0/2] nvmet: support unbound_wq for RDMA and TCP Ping Gan
2024-07-17 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] nvmet-tcp: add unbound_wq support for nvmet-tcp Ping Gan
2024-07-17 20:28 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-17 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] nvmet-rdma: add unbound_wq support for nvmet-rdma Ping Gan
2024-07-17 20:29 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-19 5:31 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] nvmet: support unbound_wq for RDMA and TCP Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-19 6:28 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-19 8:07 ` Ping Gan
2024-07-19 8:26 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-19 8:49 ` Ping Gan [this message]
2024-07-21 11:11 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-21 11:09 ` Sagi Grimberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240719084953.8050-1-jacky_gam_2001@163.com \
--to=jacky_gam_2001@163.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kch@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=ping.gan@dell.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox