Re: [PATCH v4 03/26] iommu: Add a page fault handler

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,
On 2020/2/25 17:25, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
Hi Zaibo,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:30:05AM +0800, Xu Zaibo wrote:
+struct iopf_queue *
+iopf_queue_alloc(const char *name, iopf_queue_flush_t flush, void *cookie)
+{
+	struct iopf_queue *queue;
+
+	queue = kzalloc(sizeof(*queue), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!queue)
+		return NULL;
+
+	/*
+	 * The WQ is unordered because the low-level handler enqueues faults by
+	 * group. PRI requests within a group have to be ordered, but once
+	 * that's dealt with, the high-level function can handle groups out of
+	 * order.
+	 */
+	queue->wq = alloc_workqueue("iopf_queue/%s", WQ_UNBOUND, 0, name);
Should this workqueue use 'WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND' or some flags like this
to decrease the unexpected
latency of I/O PageFault here? Or maybe, workqueue will show an uncontrolled
latency, even in a busy system.
I'll investigate the effect of these flags. So far I've only run on
completely idle systems but it would be interesting to add some
workqueue-heavy load in my tests.

I'm not sure, just my concern. Hopefully, Tejun Heo can give us some hints. :)

+cc  Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,
Zaibo

.
.






[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux