On 3/23/20 2:38 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> No, and in fact it probably should be a separate thing, but I kind of >> like your approach so not moving forward with mine. I do think it's >> worth looking into separately, as there's no reason why we can't wake a >> non-hashed worker if we're just doing hashed work from the existing >> thread. If that thread is just doing copies and not blocking, the >> unhashed (or next hashed) work is just sitting idle while it could be >> running instead. > > Then, I'll clean the diff, hopefully soon. Could I steal parts of your patch > description? Of course, go ahead. >> Hence I added that hunk, to kick a new worker to proceed in parallel. > > It seems, I need to take a closer look at this accounting in general. Agree, I think we have some room for improvement there. -- Jens Axboe
