lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: x86, mce, Use user return notifier in mce
From
Date
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 21:56 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> > It appears that WQ_HIGHPRI only provides priority between work queue,
> > not between the work queue backing kthread and other tasks. Is there
> > any mechanism for that?
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> > If my understanding was correct, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM has some side-effect for
> > that. Because hardware errors occurs seldom, the reserved kthread for
> > WQ_MEME_RECLAIM just sleeps most of the time. When first hardware error
> > occurs and the work item is queued, the reserved kthread is waked up.
> > Because the reserved kthread sleeps for long time, it is highly possible
> > for it to be scheduled at the next schedule point.
>
> But rescuer is used only under memory pressure. It doesn't help latency at all.
>
> > Because hardware error usually has no locality, WQ_UNBOUND can be used
> > for it so that the work item can be put on relative low-load CPU. From
> > the document, it is said WQ_UNBOUND work items will be executed ASAP
> > too. Compared with WQ_HIGHPRI, how about the priority of WQ_UNBOUND?
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I suggest just using WQ_HIGHPRI for now and worrying
> about it later if the scheduling latency actually turns out to matter.

This is a performance issue. So maybe we need to measure the actual
latency firstly. The first step can be using WQ_HIGHPRI as you
suggested.

Thanks for your information!

Best Regards,
Huang Ying




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-21 07:23    [W:0.055 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site