Hi!
> > > > > I know it is normal to spawn 8 threads for every single function,
> > > > ...
> > > > > but 28 threads?
> > > > >
> > > > > root 974 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Dec08 0:00 [bioset]
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > How many physical block devices do you have?
> > > >
> > > > DM is doing its part to not contribute to this:
> > > > dbba42d8a ("dm: eliminate unused "bioset" process for each bio-based DM device")
> > > >
> > > > (but yeah, all these extra 'bioset' threads aren't ideal)
> > >
> > > Still there in 4.4-final.
> >
> > ...and still there in 4.5-rc4 :-(.
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxx> is to blame.
Um, and you acked the patch, so you are partly responsible.
> 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?
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
