lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch,v2] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusher threads
Date
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com> writes:

> On 2012-12-03 19:53, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In realtime environments, it may be desirable to keep the per-bdi
>> flusher threads from running on certain cpus. This patch adds a
>> cpu_list file to /sys/class/bdi/* to enable this. The default is to tie
>> the flusher threads to the same numa node as the backing device (though
>> I could be convinced to make it a mask of all cpus to avoid a change in
>> behaviour).
>
> Looks sane, and I think defaulting to the home node is a sane default.
> One comment:
>
>> + ret = cpulist_parse(buf, newmask);
>> + if (!ret) {
>> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> + task = wb->task;
>> + if (task)
>> + get_task_struct(task);
>> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
>
> bdi->wb_lock needs to be bh safe. The above should have caused lockdep
> warnings for you.

No lockdep complaints. I'll double check that's enabled (but I usually
have it enabled...).

>> @@ -437,6 +488,14 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
>> spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> bdi->wb.task = task;
>> spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> + mutex_lock(&bdi->flusher_cpumask_mutex);
>> + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task,
>> + bdi->flusher_cpumask);
>> + mutex_unlock(&bdi->flusher_cpumask_mutex);
>
> It'd be very useful if we had a kthread_create_cpu_on_cpumask() instead
> of a _node() variant, since the latter could easily be implemented on
> top of the former. But not really a show stopper for the patch...

Hmm, if it isn't too scary, I might give this a try.

Thanks!
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-04 22:01    [W:0.072 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site