On 06/29/2010 06:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Arjan.Thinking more about it. It's now not difficult to add a gcwq for an
On 06/29/2010 06:40 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
uh? clearly the assumption is that if I have a 16 CPU machine, and 12Hmmm... workqueue workers are bound to certain cpu, so if you schedule
items of work get scheduled,
that we get all 12 running in parallel. All the smarts of cmwq surely
only kick in once you've reached the
"one work item per cpu" threshold ???
a work on a specific CPU, it will run there. Once a cpu gets
saturated, the issuing thread will be moved elsewhere. I don't think
it matters to any of the current async users one way or the other,
would it?
unbound pseudo CPU number and use it as host for workers which can run
on any CPU. The automatic concurrency management doesn't make much
sense for those workers, so @max_active can be used as the explicit
concurrency throttle. It's not even gonna take a lot of code but I'm
just not convinced that there's much benefit in doing that. So, yeah,
if necessary, sure, but let's think whether it's gonna be actually
useful.