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 t
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 m
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,
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.
Regard
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: MYTAS
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, wha
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];
...
> >> 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 ar
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 en
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
> -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 d
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 wor
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 XSt
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
kworke
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. B
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 am
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 versi
21 matches
Mail list logo
