On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:18 AM <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> > > There is not harm to mark the ceph-cap workqueue unbounded, just > like we do in ceph-inode workqueue. > > URL: https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg78775.html > URL: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/64977 > Reported-by: Stefan Kooman <stefan@xxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/ceph/super.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c > index 4dcbbaa297f6..0bfe4f8418fd 100644 > --- a/fs/ceph/super.c > +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c > @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static struct ceph_fs_client *create_fs_client(struct ceph_mount_options *fsopt, > fsc->inode_wq = alloc_workqueue("ceph-inode", WQ_UNBOUND, 0); > if (!fsc->inode_wq) > goto fail_client; > - fsc->cap_wq = alloc_workqueue("ceph-cap", 0, 1); > + fsc->cap_wq = alloc_workqueue("ceph-cap", WQ_UNBOUND, 1); Hi Xiubo, You wrote that there is no harm in making ceph-cap workqueue unbound, but, if it's made unbound, it would be almost the same as ceph-inode workqueue. The only difference would be that max_active parameter for ceph-cap workqueue is 1 instead of 0 (i.e. some default which is pretty high). Given that max_active is interpreted as a per-CPU number even for unbound workqueues, up to $NUM_CPUS work items submitted to ceph-cap workqueue could still be active in a system. Does CephFS need/rely on $NUM_CPUS limit sowewhere? If not, how about removing ceph-cap workqueue and submitting its work items to ceph-inode workqueue instead? Thanks, Ilya
