On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
>> May be I misunderstood, I read in the documentation about max_active.
>> In this case, max_active is 1, but I created three workqueues, do you
>
> I see. Why are you
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:52:14PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> I do not have ordering as requirement. I can use system work queue as
> well. what is max_active by default for system wq per cpu?
For system_unbound_wq, it's the larger one of 512 and 4 * #cpus.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from
Hi Tejun,
I do not have ordering as requirement. I can use system work queue as
well. what is max_active by default for system wq per cpu?
Regards,
Deepa
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
>> May be I
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> May be I misunderstood, I read in the documentation about max_active.
> In this case, max_active is 1, but I created three workqueues, do you
I see. Why are you doing that? Is there ordering requirement? Why
not just
Hi Tejun,
May be I misunderstood, I read in the documentation about max_active.
In this case, max_active is 1, but I created three workqueues, do you
mean to say for this case, single thread can process three requests
queued up in the three different workqueues.
Sorry, if I misunderstood.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:56:10PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is sample code snippet as I cannot post my project code. In
> reality here, this work handler is copying the big chunks of data that
> code is
> here in my driver. This is running on quad core cortex A9 Thats why I
>
Hi,
Looking at the timestamps in your previous logs(copied below for reference),
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964895: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 XStarted
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964909: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 Xstopped
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.965137: task_event:
Hi,
This is sample code snippet as I cannot post my project code. In
reality here, this work handler is copying the big chunks of data that
code is
here in my driver. This is running on quad core cortex A9 Thats why I
asked. If there are 4 cpu cores, then there must be parallelism. Now
Tajun,
Hi Tejun,
Here are some code snippets from my device driver:
#defind NUMBER_OF_SUBTASKS 3
struct my_driver_object
{
struct workqueue_struct *sub_task_wq;
struct work_struct sub_task_work;
char my_obj_wq_name[80];
int task_id;
};
struct my_driver_object obj[3];
Hi Tejun,
Here are some code snippets from my device driver:
#defind NUMBER_OF_SUBTASKS 3
struct my_driver_object
{
struct workqueue_struct *sub_task_wq;
struct work_struct sub_task_work;
char my_obj_wq_name[80];
int task_id;
};
struct my_driver_object obj[3];
Hi,
This is sample code snippet as I cannot post my project code. In
reality here, this work handler is copying the big chunks of data that
code is
here in my driver. This is running on quad core cortex A9 Thats why I
asked. If there are 4 cpu cores, then there must be parallelism. Now
Tajun,
Hi,
Looking at the timestamps in your previous logs(copied below for reference),
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964895: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 XStarted
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964909: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 Xstopped
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.965137: task_event:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:56:10PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
Hi,
This is sample code snippet as I cannot post my project code. In
reality here, this work handler is copying the big chunks of data that
code is
here in my driver. This is running on quad core cortex A9 Thats why I
asked.
Hi Tejun,
May be I misunderstood, I read in the documentation about max_active.
In this case, max_active is 1, but I created three workqueues, do you
mean to say for this case, single thread can process three requests
queued up in the three different workqueues.
Sorry, if I misunderstood.
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
May be I misunderstood, I read in the documentation about max_active.
In this case, max_active is 1, but I created three workqueues, do you
I see. Why are you doing that? Is there ordering requirement? Why
not just use
Hi Tejun,
I do not have ordering as requirement. I can use system work queue as
well. what is max_active by default for system wq per cpu?
Regards,
Deepa
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:52:14PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
I do not have ordering as requirement. I can use system work queue as
well. what is max_active by default for system wq per cpu?
For system_unbound_wq, it's the larger one of 512 and 4 * #cpus.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
May be I misunderstood, I read in the documentation about max_active.
In this case, max_active is 1, but I created three workqueues, do you
I see. Why
...
> >> So on so forth.
> >> Anyway how can you write chunks of data in parallel when
> >> already some worker
> >> thread is writing i.e. the system is busy.
> >> Analogy: Suppose you are ambidextrous and you are eating.Can
> >> you eat with
> >> both of your hands at a time?So worker thread
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:05 PM, anish singh
wrote:
> Assuming single core,Is my explanation correct about concurrency?
Yes, for bound workqueues, that's correct. Concurrency management
doesn't apply to unbound ones tho. Didn't notice Deepawali's test case
either just didn't take long
pawali Verma
>> Cc: Tejun Heo; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Work queue questions
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Deepawali Verma
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Tajun,
>> >
>> > These three tasks are writing the three chunks of dat
; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Work queue questions
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Deepawali Verma
dverma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tajun,
These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in
parallel. I
am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:05 PM, anish singh
anish198519851...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming single core,Is my explanation correct about concurrency?
Yes, for bound workqueues, that's correct. Concurrency management
doesn't apply to unbound ones tho. Didn't notice Deepawali's test case
...
So on so forth.
Anyway how can you write chunks of data in parallel when
already some worker
thread is writing i.e. the system is busy.
Analogy: Suppose you are ambidextrous and you are eating.Can
you eat with
both of your hands at a time?So worker thread are like your
hands
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of anish singh
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:25 PM
> To: Deepawali Verma
> Cc: Tejun Heo; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> Hi Tajun,
>
> These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in parallel. I
> am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between
> writing these chunks one by one in single thread instead of trying to
> write the
Hello, Deepawali.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:35:13PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in parallel. I
> am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between
> writing these chunks one by one in single thread instead of trying to
Hi Tajun,
These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in parallel. I
am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between
writing these chunks one by one in single thread instead of trying to
write the data by scheduling the work on three different workqueues
means 3
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:26:01PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964895: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 XStarted
> kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964909: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 Xstopped
> kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.965137: task_event: MYTASKJOB2382
Hi Tejun,
I have put the ftrace markers in my code:
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964895: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 XStarted
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964909: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 Xstopped
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.965137: task_event: MYTASKJOB2382 XStarted
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:30:21PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
> Actually I want to make parallelization of one task into three tasks.
> Therefore I created three single threaded work queues means divide the
> task into three tasks. You are right that I can use one work queue as
> well.
Hi Tejun,
Actually I want to make parallelization of one task into three tasks.
Therefore I created three single threaded work queues means divide the
task into three tasks. You are right that I can use one work queue as
well. But when I am doing three times schedule on different work
queues, I
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 06:35:25PM +0100, Dinky Verma wrote:
> I have one question regarding concurrency managed workqueue. In the
> previous kernel versions, I was using
> create_singlethread_workqueue("driver_wq") e.g workqueue name is
> driver_wq. In my device driver with the latest kernel
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 06:35:25PM +0100, Dinky Verma wrote:
I have one question regarding concurrency managed workqueue. In the
previous kernel versions, I was using
create_singlethread_workqueue(driver_wq) e.g workqueue name is
driver_wq. In my device driver with the latest kernel version, I
Hi Tejun,
Actually I want to make parallelization of one task into three tasks.
Therefore I created three single threaded work queues means divide the
task into three tasks. You are right that I can use one work queue as
well. But when I am doing three times schedule on different work
queues, I
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:30:21PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
Actually I want to make parallelization of one task into three tasks.
Therefore I created three single threaded work queues means divide the
task into three tasks. You are right that I can use one work queue as
well. But
Hi Tejun,
I have put the ftrace markers in my code:
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964895: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 XStarted
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964909: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 Xstopped
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.965137: task_event: MYTASKJOB2382 XStarted
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:26:01PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964895: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 XStarted
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.964909: task_event: MYTASKJOB2381 Xstopped
kworker/u:1-21[000] 110.965137: task_event: MYTASKJOB2382
Hi Tajun,
These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in parallel. I
am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between
writing these chunks one by one in single thread instead of trying to
write the data by scheduling the work on three different workqueues
means 3
Hello, Deepawali.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:35:13PM +0100, Deepawali Verma wrote:
These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in parallel. I
am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between
writing these chunks one by one in single thread instead of trying to
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Deepawali Verma dverma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tajun,
These three tasks are writing the three chunks of data in parallel. I
am not getting improvement here otherwise what is difference between
writing these chunks one by one in single thread instead of trying
-Original Message-
From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of anish singh
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:25 PM
To: Deepawali Verma
Cc: Tejun Heo; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Work queue questions
On Sat
42 matches
Mail list logo
