Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754700AbbG0VFw (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:05:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]:38081 "EHLO mail-wi0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752718AbbG0VFv (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:05:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 23:05:41 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Tejun Heo Cc: LKML , Oleg Nesterov , Christoph Lameter , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kmod: Cleanups, simplifications, and make isolation friendly v3 Message-ID: <20150727210530.GA19248@lerouge> References: <1438014440-20669-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20150727184840.GB16393@mtj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150727184840.GB16393@mtj.duckdns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1617 Lines: 37 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:48:40PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 06:27:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Hence those two debatable changes: > > > > _ We would like to use generic workqueues. System unbound workqueues are > > a very good candidate but they are not wide affine, only node affine. > > Now probably a node is enough to perform many parallel kmod jobs. > > If being node-affine is an issue, kmod can easily create a workqueue > w/o NUMA affinity using apply_workqueue_attrs() with no_numa set to > %true. Right, but we would like to get rid of khelper which already plays a similar role. > > > _ We would like to remove the wait_for_helper kernel thread (UMH_WAIT_PROC > > handler) to use the workqueue. It means that if the workqueue blocks, > > and no other worker can take pending kmod request, we can be screwed. > > Now if we have 512 threads, this should be enough. > > The maximum number of worker can also be raised on the workqueue. > That said, I don't think we want to. > > IMHO, system_wq should be fine and if it isn't turning off numa > affinity or raising max worker limit later is pretty trivial. That's what I think too. How many workers system_unbound_wq can handle? If kmod raises very high numbers of threads in parallel like > 500, I think that would be a problem on its own anyway. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/