On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:05:45AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> > Maybe just cap max_active to NR_OF_LOOP_DEVS * 16 or sth? But idk, >> > how many concurrent workers are we talking about and why are we >> > capping per-queue concurrency from worker pool side instead of command >> > tag side? >> >> Also we probably should have per device workqueues to start with.. > > Yeah, that's an option. The only thing is that each workqueue would I guess we have to do that because of nested loop devices. > have to be tagged WQ_RESCUER and end up with separate rescuer task, > which usually isn't big a deal but there are setups where a lot of > loop devices are used and it may sting a bit. The work queue can be allocated just before the loop is to be used and destroyed when it needn't. I will figure out one patch to do that. > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html