From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc: "jiangshanlai@gmail.com" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
"mhocko@suse.com" <mhocko@suse.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] workqueue: honour cond_resched() more effectively.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:23:44 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ft55nd6n.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201109161007.GF7496@mtj.duckdns.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]
On Mon, Nov 09 2020, tj@kernel.org wrote:
> Given that nothing on
> these types of workqueues can be latency sensitive
This caught my eye and it seems worth drilling in to. There is no
mention of "latency" in workqueue.rst or workqueue.h. But you seem to
be saying there is an undocumented assumption that latency-sensitive
work items much not be scheduled on CM-workqueues.
Is that correct?
NFS writes are latency sensitive to a degree as increased latency per
request will hurt overall throughput. Does this mean that handling
write-completion in a CM-wq is a poor choice?
Would it be better to us WQ_HIGHPRI?? Is there any rule-of-thumb that
can be used to determine when WQ_HIGHPRI is appropriate?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-19 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-09 2:54 [PATCH rfc] workqueue: honour cond_resched() more effectively NeilBrown
2020-11-09 7:50 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-09 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-09 13:50 ` Trond Myklebust
2020-11-09 14:01 ` tj
2020-11-09 14:11 ` Trond Myklebust
2020-11-09 16:10 ` tj
2020-11-17 22:16 ` NeilBrown
[not found] ` <20201118025820.307-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2020-11-18 5:11 ` NeilBrown
[not found] ` <20201118055108.358-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2020-11-19 23:07 ` NeilBrown
2020-12-02 20:20 ` tj
[not found] ` <20201120025953.607-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2020-11-20 4:33 ` NeilBrown
[not found] ` <20201126100646.1790-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2020-11-26 23:44 ` NeilBrown
2020-11-19 23:23 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2020-11-25 12:36 ` tj
2020-11-26 23:30 ` NeilBrown
2020-11-09 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-10 2:26 ` NeilBrown
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=87ft55nd6n.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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