From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754097Ab0EWJZ1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2010 05:25:27 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:46462 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753443Ab0EWJZJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2010 05:25:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4BF8F46A.1060407@kernel.org> Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 11:24:58 +0200 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET sched/core] sched: prepare for cmwq References: <1273747705-7829-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4BF1CD92.9030800@kernel.org> <4BF689DD.2090306@kernel.org> <20100523090544.GB25524@elte.hu> <4BF8F0A4.5060608@kernel.org> <20100523091306.GE25524@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20100523091306.GE25524@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 23 May 2010 09:25:00 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On 05/23/2010 11:13 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > ... which is then used for the concurrency-managed > workqueue feature, which is then used for a BTRFS speedup, > right? > > ( If that's not the plan then color me confused :) Yeap, you're officially confused. :-) It doesn't have much to do with btrfs at this point and performance test result was posted earlier this year (on your request too) where it performed quite similarly to the workqueue code on the favorable side while providing much easier API for its users. The whole thing has been sitting in my queue for months now blocked on these scheduler changes. I've requested multiple times to push this forward on at least a separate sched devel branch and make incremental changes from there if scheduler side is not satisfactory so that the whole code base can be tested in wider scope and fix and improvement history can be kept in git, about which you always have had a pretty strong opinion about. There is no outstanding major opposition to cmwq itself (fscache conversion needs more performance testing tho). The whole thing is blocked on these scheduler changes. What's up? Thanks. -- tejun