Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

> Tejun Heo <hte...@gmail.com> wrote on 03/31/2016 08:14:35 PM: > > Hello, Michael. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:17:13AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote: > > > There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound > > > workqueues. workqueue be

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

> Tejun Heo wrote on 03/31/2016 08:14:35 PM: > > Hello, Michael. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:17:13AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote: > > > There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound > > > workqueues. workqueue becomes a convenience thing

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hi Tejun, > Tejun Heo <hte...@gmail.com> wrote on 03/31/2016 08:14:35 PM: > > Hello, Michael. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:17:13AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote: > > > There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound > > > workqueues. work

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hi Bandan, > Bandan Das wrote on 03/31/2016 09:45:43 PM: > > > >> > > opportunity for optimization, at least for some workloads... > >> > > >> > What sort of optimizations are we talking about? > >> > >> Well, if we take Evlis (1) as for the theoretical base, there could be

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hi Bandan, > Bandan Das wrote on 03/31/2016 09:45:43 PM: > > > >> > > opportunity for optimization, at least for some workloads... > >> > > >> > What sort of optimizations are we talking about? > >> > >> Well, if we take Evlis (1) as for the theoretical base, there could be > >> benefit of

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hi Tejun, > Tejun Heo wrote on 03/31/2016 08:14:35 PM: > > Hello, Michael. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:17:13AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote: > > > There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound > > > workqueues. workqueue becomes a convenience

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hello, > Tejun Heo <hte...@gmail.com> wrote on 03/30/2016 08:04:19 PM: > > Hello, > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote: > > I did some performance evaluation of different threading models in vhost, > > and in most tests replacin

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hello, > Tejun Heo wrote on 03/30/2016 08:04:19 PM: > > Hello, > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote: > > I did some performance evaluation of different threading models in vhost, > > and in most tests replacing vhost kthread

Re: vhost threading model

> Bandan Das <b...@redhat.com> wrote on 03/22/2016 09:00:50 PM: > > "Michael Rapoport" <rapop...@il.ibm.com> writes: > > > > Well, Elvis is a _theoretical_ example that showed that I/O scheduling in > > the vhost improves performance. > >

Re: vhost threading model

> Bandan Das wrote on 03/22/2016 09:00:50 PM: > > "Michael Rapoport" writes: > > > > Well, Elvis is a _theoretical_ example that showed that I/O scheduling in > > the vhost improves performance. > > I'm not saying we should take Evlis and try to s

vhost threading model (was: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues)

> Bandan Das <b...@redhat.com> wrote on 03/21/2016 07:43:41 PM: > > "Michael Rapoport" <rapop...@il.ibm.com> writes: > > > > Hi Bandan, > > > >> From: Bandan Das <b...@redhat.com> > >> > >> At Linuxcon last year,

vhost threading model (was: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues)

> Bandan Das wrote on 03/21/2016 07:43:41 PM: > > "Michael Rapoport" writes: > > > > Hi Bandan, > > > >> From: Bandan Das > >> > >> At Linuxcon last year, based on our presentation "vhost: sharing is > > bet

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hi Bandan, > From: Bandan Das > > At Linuxcon last year, based on our presentation "vhost: sharing is better" [1], > we had briefly discussed the idea of cgroup aware workqueues with Tejun. The > following patches are a result of the discussion. They are in no way complete

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hi Bandan, > From: Bandan Das > > At Linuxcon last year, based on our presentation "vhost: sharing is better" [1], > we had briefly discussed the idea of cgroup aware workqueues with Tejun. The > following patches are a result of the discussion. They are in no way complete in > that the

Re: [PATCH V4 0/3] basic busy polling support for vhost_net

Hi Greg, > Greg Kurz wrote on 03/09/2016 09:26:45 PM: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 06:24:50 -0500 > > Jason Wang wrote: > > > This series tries to add basic busy polling for vhost net. The idea is > > simple: at the end of tx/rx processing, busy

Re: [PATCH V4 0/3] basic busy polling support for vhost_net

Hi Greg, > Greg Kurz wrote on 03/09/2016 09:26:45 PM: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 06:24:50 -0500 > > Jason Wang wrote: > > > This series tries to add basic busy polling for vhost net. The idea is > > simple: at the end of tx/rx processing, busy polling for new tx added > > descriptor and rx