| To: | Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: does having ~Ncore+1? kworkers flushing XFS to 1 disk improve throughput? |
| From: | Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:07:48 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <52181B69.6060707@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <52181B69.6060707@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
On 8/23/2013 9:33 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > So what are all the kworkers doing and does having 6 of them > do things at the same time really help disk-throughput? > > Seems like they would conflict w/each other, cause > disk contention, and extra fragmentation as they > do things? If they were all writing to separate > disks, that would make sense, but do that many kworker > threads need to be finishing out disk I/O on 1 disk? https://raw.github.com/torvalds/linux/master/Documentation/workqueue.txt -- Stan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Power loss and zero-length files, Stan Hoeppner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Power loss and zero-length files, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | does having ~Ncore+1? kworkers flushing XFS to 1 disk improve throughput?, Linda Walsh |
| Next by Thread: | Re: does having ~Ncore+1? kworkers flushing XFS to 1 disk improve throughput?, Linda Walsh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |