Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:52:10 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, lizefan@huawei.com, bsd@redhat.com,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, mhocko@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        steven.sistare@oracle.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        tom.hromatka@oracle.com, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/5] cgroup-aware unbound workqueues
Message-ID: <20190611195210.GK3341036@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
References: <20190605133650.28545-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
 <20190605135319.GK374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20190606061525.GD23056@rapoport-lnx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190606061525.GD23056@rapoport-lnx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 09:15:26AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Can you please go into more details on the use cases?
> 
> If I remember correctly, the original Bandan's work was about using
> workqueues instead of kthreads in vhost. 

For vhosts, I think it might be better to stick with kthread or
kthread_worker given that they can consume lots of cpu cycles over a
long period of time and we want to keep persistent track of scheduling
states.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun