On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:46:13AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 09/08/2010 10:28 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> They may if necessary to keep the workqueue progressing. > > > > Ok, so the normal case is that they will all be processed local to the > > CPU they were queued on, like the old workqueue code? > > Bound workqueues always process works locally. Please consider the > following scenario. > > w0, w1, w2 are queued to q0 on the same CPU. w0 burns CPU for 5ms > then sleeps for 10ms then burns CPU for 5ms again then finishes. w1 > and w2 sleeps for 10ms. > > The following is what happens with the original workqueue (ignoring > all other tasks and processing overhead). > > TIME IN MSECS EVENT > 0 w0 burns CPU > 5 w0 sleeps > 15 w0 wakes and burns CPU > 20 w0 finishes, w1 starts and sleeps > 30 w1 finishes, w2 starts and sleeps > 40 w2 finishes > > With cmwq if @max_active >= 3, > > TIME IN MSECS EVENT > 0 w0 burns CPU > 5 w0 sleeps, w1 starts and sleeps, w2 starts and sleeps > 15 w0 wakes and burns CPU, w1 finishes, w2 finishes > 20 w0 finishes > > IOW, cmwq assigns a new worker when there are more work items to > process but no work item is currently in progress on the CPU. Please > note that this behavior is across *all* workqueues. It doesn't matter > which work item belongs to which workqueue. Ok, so in this case if this was on CPU 1, I'd see kworker[1:0], kworker[1:1] and kworker[1:2] threads all accumulate CPU time? I'm just trying to relate your example it to behaviour I've seen to check if I understand the example correctly. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
