Hello, Jeff. On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:26:27PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > I'm already using WQ_UNBOUND workqueues. If that exempts this code from > the concurrency management, then that's probably not the problem. The > jobs here aren't terribly CPU intensive, but they can sleep for a long > time while waiting on I/O, etc... Yeap, noticed that. Replied in another message. > I don't think we necessarily need CPU locality (though that's nice to > have of course), but NUMA affinity will likely be important. It looked > like you had done some work a year or so ago to make unbound workqueues > prefer to queue work on the same NUMA node which meshes nicely with > what I think we want for this. Yeap, unbound workqueues are NUMA-affine by default. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
