[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: workqueue thing
    On 12/21/2009 15:19, Tejun Heo wrote:
    > Ah... okay, there are two aspects cmwq invovles the scheduler.
    > A. Concurrency management. This is achieved by the scheduler
    > callbacks which watches how many workers are working.
    > B. Deadlock avoidance. This requires migrating rescuers to CPUs under
    > allocation distress. The problem here is that
    > set_cpus_allowed_ptr() doesn't allow migrating tasks to CPUs which
    > are online but !active (CPU_DOWN_PREPARE).

    why would you get involved in what-runs-where at all? Wouldn't the scheduler
    load balancer be a useful thing ? ;-)

    > For A, it's far more efficient and robust with scheduler callbacks.
    > It's conceptually pretty simple too.

    Assuming you don't get tasks that do lots of cpu intense work and that need
    to get preempted raid5/6 sync but also the btrfs checksumming etc etc.
    That to me is the weak spot of the scheduler callback thing. We already have
    a whole thing that knows how to load balance and preempt tasks... it's called "scheduler".
    Let the scheduler do its job and just give it insight in the work (by having a runnable thread)

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-21 16:23    [W:0.047 / U:41.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site