public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] backing-dev: replace private thread pool with   workqueue
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:50:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CF152F4.6060400@fusionio.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CF12BAB.3000704@kernel.org>

On 2010-11-27 17:02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 09/07/2010 02:36 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 09/07/2010 02:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> I agree (with both of you). It's definitely too early to convert it
>>> over, but if we can in the longer run, it never hurts to get rid of
>>> code. The writeback threads aren't a typical threadpool, in that the
>>> threads stick around and only go away when idle for too long. If they
>>> stick around, you get the same process hammering IO at your device. So
>>> converting that over to the generic cwq may or may not be at a
>>> performance cost, it'll definitely have to be tested.
>>
>> One thing to try is removing WQ_UNBOUND and see how it affects the
>> performance.  I put WQ_UNBOUND there mainly to keep the behavior about
>> the same as the current code but given what it does I think it would
>> probably fare better with workers bound to CPUs.
> 
> cmwq now seems pretty solid.  There hasn't been any noticeable failure
> yet.  I think we can move on with this conversion now.  Shall I
> refresh the patchset against the current block tree?

I'd still prefer to wait a while. The writeback code is still very much
a moving target, so I don't think mixing in a different work queue
scheme is likely going to do anyone any good at this point in time.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-27 18:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-06 12:46 [PATCHSET] backing-dev: replace private thread pool with workqueue Tejun Heo
2010-09-06 12:46 ` [PATCH 1/5] workqueue: implement workqueue_on_rescuer() Tejun Heo
2010-09-06 12:46 ` [PATCH 2/5] backing-dev: kill unused bdi_writeback->nr Tejun Heo
2010-09-08  8:57   ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-09-06 12:46 ` [PATCH 3/5] backing-dev: replace private thread pool with workqueue Tejun Heo
2010-09-06 12:46 ` [PATCH 4/5] backing-dev: update trace points Tejun Heo
2010-09-06 12:46 ` [PATCH 5/5] backing-dev: replace sync_supers_tsk/timer with a delayed_work Tejun Heo
2010-09-08  9:00   ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-09-07 12:16 ` [PATCHSET] backing-dev: replace private thread pool with workqueue Christoph Hellwig
2010-09-07 12:19   ` Tejun Heo
2010-09-07 12:29     ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-07 12:36       ` Tejun Heo
2010-11-27 16:02         ` Tejun Heo
2010-11-27 18:50           ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2010-11-27 20:30             ` Tejun Heo

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=4CF152F4.6060400@fusionio.com \
    --to=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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