[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] cmwq and dm-crypt devices?
- From: Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org>
- To: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- Cc: Christophe Saout <christophe saout de>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, Brian Swetland <swetland google com>, San Mehat <san google com>, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, andi firstfloor org, Andrew Morton <akpm linux-foundation org>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>, Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] cmwq and dm-crypt devices?
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 12:51:44 +0100
>
> > 2) scale up the number of workqueue threads used for a single dm-crypt
> > device so that a device can realize per-cpu concurrency (to address
> > Andi's scalability concerns: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244031/)
They are already addressed in my patchkit and the patches seem to be used
by more and more users. It's just you guys who are behind.
> >
> > [the desired locality is currently missing due to dm-crypt's current
> > use of WQ_UNBOUND; so it is clear the way the workqueues are created
> > will be important]
>
> I don't know enough about dm-crypt workload to tell whether per-cpu
> affinity would be better or not, but it's really a simple matter of
CPU affinity and an own thread makes sense for the crypto helper
because it uses up a lot of CPU time.
For the IO helper you probably still want CPU affinity, but it
can be concurrency managed.
-andi
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]