Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755300Ab0FSJOK (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:14:10 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:48734 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755160Ab0FSJOG (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:14:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4C1C8A18.2030709@kernel.org> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:12:56 +0200 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: Andy Walls , Daniel Walker , mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, oleg@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue References: <1276694825.9309.12.camel@m0nster> <4C18D1FD.9060804@kernel.org> <1276695665.9309.17.camel@m0nster> <4C18D574.1040903@kernel.org> <1276697146.9309.27.camel@m0nster> <1276776066.2461.15.camel@localhost> <87vd9fo1sk.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4C1C8263.9040404@kernel.org> <87fx0jo0z6.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4C1C8772.8090406@kernel.org> <20100619090851.GF18946@basil.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: <20100619090851.GF18946@basil.fritz.box> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1311 Lines: 35 Hello, On 06/19/2010 11:08 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > I think it's reasonable to just put on front. The individual > items shouldn't take that long, right? > > (in fact I have an older patch for work queues which implemented > that) Well, in general, queueing to execution latency should be fairly low especially if it's put at the front of the queue but well it's nothing with any kind of guarantee. >> If there are multiple of such use cases, it would make sense to create >> a prioritized worker pools along with prioritized per-cpu queues but >> if there are only a few of them, I think it makes more sense to use >> dedicated threads for them. Do those threads need to be per-cpu? > > Not strictly, although it might be useful on a error flood when > a whole DIMM goes bad. I'm currently writing a kthread wrapper which basically provides similar interface to wq but guarantees binding to a specific thread which can be RT of course. If single threadedness is acceptable, I think this would render better behavior. What do you think? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/