On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:18:14PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: ... > unbound. If strict cpu locality is likely to be beneficial and each > work item isn't likely to consume huge amount of cpu cycles, > WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE would fit better; otherwise, WQ_UNBOUND to let the > scheduler do its thing. Hmmm... but you're already using WQ_UNBOUND. Concurrency management doesn't matter for unbound workqueues. They really just behave as shared worker thread pools. Does turning on WQ_HIGHPRI change anything? Workqueue always prefers hot workers which can lead to the hot ones being penalized for consuming too much CPU time. 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
