From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Screwing with the concurrency limit
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 06:55:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D287AED.9090304@gmail.com> (raw)
First off, wild applause for cmwq. The limitations of the old workqueues
were a major irritation, I think your new implementation is fabulous.
However, when merging bcache with mainline, I ran into a bit of a thorny
issue. Bcache relies heavily on workqueues, updates to the cache's btree
have to be done after every relevant IO completes. Additionally, btree
insertions can involve sleeping on IO while the root of the tree isn't
write locked - so we'd like to not block other work items from
completing if we don't have to.
So, one might expect the way to get the best performance would be
alloc_workqueue("bcache", WQ_HIGHPRI|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0)
Trouble is, sometimes we do write lock the root of the btree, blocking
everything else from getting anything done - the end result is
root@moria:~# ps ax|grep kworker|wc -l
1550
(running dbench in a VM with disks in tmpfs). Performance is fine (I
think, haven't been trying to rigorously benchmark) but that's annoying.
I think the best way I can express it is that bcache normally wants a
concurrency limit of 1, except when we're blocking and we aren't write
locking the root of the btree.
So, do you think there might be some sane way of doing this with cmwq?
Some way to say "Don't count this work item I'm in right now count
against the workqueue's concurrency limit anymore". If such a thing
could be done, I think it'd be the perfect solution (and I'll owe you a
case of your choice of beer :)
next reply other threads:[~2011-01-08 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-08 14:55 Kent Overstreet [this message]
2011-01-08 16:18 ` Screwing with the concurrency limit Tejun Heo
2011-01-08 16:37 ` Tejun Heo
2011-01-08 18:06 ` Kent Overstreet
2011-01-09 14:41 ` Tejun Heo
2011-01-11 19:38 ` Kent Overstreet
2011-01-12 13:08 ` 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=4D287AED.9090304@gmail.com \
--to=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--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