xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [2.6.36-rc3] Workqueues, XFS, dependencies and deadlocks

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.6.36-rc3] Workqueues, XFS, dependencies and deadlocks
From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:28:40 +0200
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100908101222.GY705@dastard>
References: <20100907072954.GM705@dastard> <4C86003B.6090706@xxxxxxxxxx> <20100907100108.GN705@dastard> <4C861582.6080102@xxxxxxxxxx> <20100907124850.GP705@dastard> <4C865CC4.9070701@xxxxxxxxxx> <20100908073428.GR705@dastard> <4C87474B.3050405@xxxxxxxxxx> <20100908082819.GV705@dastard> <4C874D55.6080402@xxxxxxxxxx> <20100908101222.GY705@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3
Hello,

On 09/08/2010 12:12 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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.

Yes, you're right.  If all three works just burn CPU cycles for 5ms
then you'll only see one kworker w/ 15ms of accumulated CPU time.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>