Re: workqueue thing

[Arjan van de Ven]

On 12/21/2009 12:09, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > in addition, threads are cheap. Linux has no technical problem with
> > > running 100's of kernel threads (if not 1000s); they cost basically a
> > > task struct and a stack (2 pages) each and that's about it.  making an
> > > elaborate-and-thus-fragile design to save a few kernel threads is
> > > likely a bad design direction...
> >
> > One would hope not, since that is by no means outside of what you see on
> > boxes today... Thousands. The fact that they are cheap, is not an
> > argument against doing it right. Conceptually, I think the concurrency
> > managed work queue pool is a much cleaner (and efficient) design.
>
> Agreed. Even if possible thousands of threads waste precious cache.

only used ones waste cache ;-)

> And they look ugly in ps.

that we could solve by making them properly threads of each other; ps and co
already (at least by default) fold threads of the same program into one.

> Also the nice thing about dynamically sizing the thread pool
> is that if something bad (error condition that takes long) happens
> in one work queue for a specific subsystem there's still a chance
> to make process with other operations in the same subsystem.

yup
same is true for hitting some form of contention; just make an extra thread
so that the rest can continue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/