| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.6.36-rc3] Workqueues, XFS, dependencies and deadlocks, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs mount/create options (was: XFS status update for August 2010), Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [2.6.36-rc3] Workqueues, XFS, dependencies and deadlocks, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Global Cloud Computing Service Market Outlook 2014, Laura Wood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |