Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1338911
| From | Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook |
| Date | 2016-02-21 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r4GCe-1rJ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <r4kLn-1Ae-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <r4lR8-2q1-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <r4m0N-2IT-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <r4mtR-2SH-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <r4mNb-2Zt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 09:55:19PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > You're directing this concern to the wrong person. > > > > > > > > I already told you DM is _not_ contributing any extra "bioset" threads > > > > (ever since commit dbba42d8a). > > > > > > Well, sorry about that. Note that l-k is on the cc list, so hopefully > > > the right person sees it too. > > > > > > Ok, let me check... it seems that > > > 54efd50bfd873e2dbf784e0b21a8027ba4299a3e is responsible, thus Kent > > > Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> is to blame. > > > > > > Um, and you acked the patch, so you are partly responsible. > > > > You still haven't shown you even understand the patch so don't try to > > blame me for one aspect you don't like. > > Well, I don't have to understand the patch to argue its wrong. > > > > > But in general, these "bioset" threads are a side-effect of the > > > > late-bio-splitting support. So is your position on it: "I don't like > > > > that feature if it comes at the expense of adding resources I can _see_ > > > > for something I (naively?) view as useless"? > > > > > > > Just seems... naive... but you could be trying to say something else > > > > entirely. > > > > > > > Anyway, if you don't like something: understand why it is there and then > > > > try to fix it to your liking (without compromising why it was there to > > > > begin with). > > > > > > Well, 28 kernel threads on a notebook is a bug, plain and simple. Do > > > you argue it is not? > > > > Just implies you have 28 request_queues right? You clearly have > > something else going on on your notebook than the average notebook > > user. > > I'm not using the modules, but otherwise I'm not doing anything > special. How many request_queues should I expect? How many do you have > on your notebook? It's one rescuer thread per bio_set, not one per request queue, so 28 is more than I'd expect but there's lots of random bio_sets so it's not entirely unexpected. It'd be better to have the rescuers be per request_queue, just someone is going to have to write the code.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-02-20 18:50 +0100
Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-02-20 19:50 +0100
Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> - 2016-02-20 21:00 +0100
Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-02-20 21:10 +0100
Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> - 2016-02-20 21:40 +0100
Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-02-20 22:00 +0100
Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 19:10 +0100
RE: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Ming Lin-SSI <ming.l@ssi.samsung.com> - 2016-02-21 20:50 +0100
Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com> - 2016-02-21 22:30 +0100
csiph-web