Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932226Ab0F2RBv (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:01:51 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:32972 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932204Ab0F2RBu (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:01:50 -0400 Message-ID: <4C2A2688.1020206@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:59:52 +0200 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SUSE/3.0.4-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjan van de Ven CC: Frederic Weisbecker , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, 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, oleg@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, dwalker@codeaurora.org, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, florian@mickler.org, andi@firstfloor.org, mst@redhat.com, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/35] async: use workqueue for worker pool References: <1277759063-24607-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1277759063-24607-35-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20100628225513.GB10104@nowhere> <4C299FD8.7030904@kernel.org> <20100629121855.GA5318@nowhere> <4C2A1558.7060007@kernel.org> <20100629155228.GK5318@nowhere> <4C2A176F.1090101@kernel.org> <4C2A220B.8080006@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4C2A220B.8080006@linux.intel.com> 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]); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:00:11 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 863 Lines: 24 Hello, Arjan. On 06/29/2010 06:40 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > uh? clearly the assumption is that if I have a 16 CPU machine, and 12 > items of work get scheduled, > that we get all 12 running in parallel. All the smarts of cmwq surely > only kick in once you've reached the > "one work item per cpu" threshold ??? Hmmm... workqueue workers are bound to certain cpu, so if you schedule a work on a specific CPU, it will run there. Once a cpu gets saturated, the issuing thread will be moved elsewhere. I don't think it matters to any of the current async users one way or the other, would it? 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/