Messages in this thread | | | From | Trond Myklebust <> | Subject | Re: NFS: 82ms wakeup latency 4.14-rc4 | Date | Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:24:29 +0000 |
| |
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 18:00 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:35 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > Like I say, I don't really understand the issues here, so it's more > > a > > question than an objection.... (I don't know any reason a > > cond_resched() would be bad there.) > > Think of it this way: what all can be queued up behind that kworker > that is hogging CPU for huge swaths of time? It's not only userspace > that suffers. >
Any cond_sched() belongs in the loop in nfs_commit_release_pages() (where it can be mitigated) rather than in a function whose purpose is to free memory. There is no reason to call it from the writeback or readpages code.
-- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@primarydata.com
| |