Hi Pablo, On 6 November 2017 at 15:56, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:31:55PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:16:07 +0100 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > conntrack uses the bounded system_long_wq workqueue for its works that >> > don't have to run on the cpu they have been queued. Using bounded >> > workqueue prevents the scheduler to make smart decision about the best >> > place to schedule the work. >> > >> > This patch replaces system_long_wq with system_power_efficient_wq. >> > the work stays bounded to a cpu by default unless the >> > CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT is enable. In the latter case, the work can >> > be scheduled on the best cpu from a power or a performance point of >> > view. >> >> Applied, thanks. > > I'm stepping back. According to what I'm reading > system_power_efficient_wq becomes system_wq when disabled, which is > not semantically the same as system_long_wq that we have now. When disabled, system_power_efficient_wq behaves like system_wq (and system_long_wq) as the worqueue are bounded to a cpu but It stays a different workqueue. > > My concern is that the conntrack garbage collector may run for quite a > bit of time. Did you test this with a large conntrack table full of No, I haven't done specific tests with a large conntrack table full of entries. There is no system_power_efficient_long_wq. I was not convinced that we should create one that's why I have used system_power_efficient_wq Vincent > entries? > > Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
