Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task

[Jeff Garzik]

On 08/24/2009 12:42 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > No objections to the code, operationally...
> >
> > But it is disappointing that the "1 thread on UP" problem is not solved
> > while changing this libata area.  Is there no way to specify a minimum
> > lazy-thread count?
> >
> > A key problem continues to be tying to the number of CPUs, which is
> > quite inappropriate for libata.
>
> We'll solve that next, the first problem is reducing the per-cpu
> threads. Lots of places use per-cpu workqueues because that is what is
> available, not necessarily because it's an appropriate choice. Like the
> ata_wq above, it's not even a good fit.

Agreed + sounds great.

Thanks -- both for hacking libata for this, and more generally, for 
attacking the too-many-kthreads problem!  :)  It's just sad how many 
unused workqueue threads hang about, on every modern Linux box.

	Jeff



--
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/