Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:03:51 -0500 | From | David Teigland <> | Subject | Re: dlm: Use cmwq for send and receive workqueues |
| |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 04:20:35PM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 11:12 -0500, David Teigland wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:12:29PM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > > > > > So far as I can tell, there is no reason to use a single-threaded > > > send workqueue for dlm, since it may need to send to several sockets > > > concurrently. Both workqueues are set to WQ_MEM_RECLAIM to avoid > > > any possible deadlocks, WQ_HIGHPRI since locking traffic is highly > > > latency sensitive (and to avoid a priority inversion wrt GFS2's > > > glock_workqueue) and WQ_FREEZABLE just in case someone needs to do > > > that (even though with current cluster infrastructure, it doesn't > > > make sense as the node will most likely land up ejected from the > > > cluster) in the future. > > > > Thanks, I'll want to do some testing with this, but my test machines do > > not seem to create more than one dlm_recv workqueue thread (prior to this > > patch). Have you tested in any cases where many threads end up being > > created? I've noticed while debugging some many-cpu machines a huge > > number of dlm_recv threads, which is just excessive. Does this patch > > address that? > > > > > Yes, one of the features of the cmwq is that you land up with only as > many threads as required. When threads block, new ones are created to > avoid stalling the workqueue. Workqueues marked with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM > create a single rescuer thread, otherwise the threads are shared with > all other users of cmwq,
Thanks, pushed to git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/dlm.git#next
| |