From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Kristian Hogsberg <hogsberg@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:44:09 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210032028130.2113-100000@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m37kh1vo9d.fsf@DK300KRH.bang-olufsen.dk>
On 1 Oct 2002, Kristian Hogsberg wrote:
> I read through your patch and I think it looks great. I'm one of the
> ieee1394 maintainers, and we also a have a worker thread mechanism in
> the ieee1394 subsystem, which could (and will, I'm going to look into
> this) be replaced by your work queue stuff. We use the thread for
> reading configuration information from ieee1394 devices. This work
> isn't very performance critical, but the reason we dont just use keventd
> is that we don't want to stall keventd while reading this information.
> So, my point is, that in this case (I'm sure there are more situations
> like this, usb has a similar worker thread, khubd), the per-cpu worker
> thread is overkill, and it would be sufficient with just one thread,
> running on all cpus. So maybe this could be an option to
> create_workqueue()? Either create a cpu-bound thread for each cpu, or
> create one thread that can run on all cpus.
i understand your point, and i really tried to get this problem solved
prior sending the multiple-workers patch, but it's not really doable
without major kludges. Is it really a problem on SMP boxes to have a few
more kernel threads? Those boxes are supposed to have enough RAM.
the only other way would be to introduce 1) runtime overhead [this sucks]
or 2) to split the API into per-CPU and global ones. [this isnt too good
either i think.]
there is enough flexibility internally - eg. we can in the future do
better load-balancing (if the XFS people will ever notice any problems in
this area), because right now the load-balancing is the simplest and
fastest variant: purely per-CPU. [in theory we could look at other CPU's
worker queues and queue there if they are empty or much shorter than this
CPU's worker queue.]
I also kept open the possibility of introducing multiple worker threads
per CPU in the future. But having a single-threaded an per-CPU behavior in
a single API looks quite hard.
we could perhaps do the following, add a single branch to the queue_work()
fastpath:
if (!cwq->thread)
cwq = wq->cpu_wq;
and the single-thread queue variant would thus fall back to using a single
queue only. Plus some sort of new variant could be used:
struct workqueue_struct *create_single_workqueue(char *name);
[or a 'flags' argument to create_workqueue();]
The runtime thing looks slightly ugly, but i think it's acceptable. Has
anyone any better idea?
> Another minor comment: why do you kmalloc() the workqueue_t? Wouldn't
> it be more flexible to allow the user to provide a pointer to a
> pre-allocated workqueue_t structure, e.g.:
>
> static workqueue_t aio_wq;
>
> [...]
>
> create_workqueue(&aio_wq, "aio");
yes, but every creation/destruction use of workqueues is in some sort of
init/shutdown very-slow-path, so efficiency is not a factor. But clarity
of the code is a factor, and in the dynamic allocation case it's much
cleaner to have this:
wq = create_workqueue("worker");
if (!wq)
goto error;
than:
wq = kmalloc(sizeof(*wq), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!wq)
goto error;
if (create_workqueue(wq, "worker")) {
kfree(w);
goto error;
}
[and we might even switch to a workqueue SLAB cache internally anytime.]
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-03 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-01 16:24 [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7 Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 17:55 ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-10-01 21:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 18:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-01 18:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 21:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-01 21:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 19:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 19:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 21:32 ` Kristian Hogsberg
2002-10-03 18:44 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2002-10-04 23:20 ` Kristian Hogsberg
2002-10-02 4:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-01 21:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-02 8:22 ` Oleg Drokin
2002-10-08 3:50 ` Jeff Dike
2002-10-01 18:52 Marc-Christian Petersen
2002-10-02 3:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-01 20:29 Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 21:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-02 3:23 ` Miles Bader
2002-10-02 19:18 ` Randy.Dunlap
2002-10-01 21:09 ` Jes Sorensen
2002-10-01 21:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-03 1:38 ` Kevin O'Connor
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=Pine.LNX.4.44.0210032028130.2113-100000@localhost.localdomain \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=hogsberg@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).