Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:04:32 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: 4.4-final: 28 bioset threads on small notebook |
| |
Hi!
> > > > > I know it is normal to spawn 8 threads for every single function, > > > > ... > > > > > but 28 threads? > > > > > > > > > > root 974 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Dec08 0:00 [bioset] > > > > ... > > > > > > > > How many physical block devices do you have? > > > > > > > > DM is doing its part to not contribute to this: > > > > dbba42d8a ("dm: eliminate unused "bioset" process for each bio-based DM device") > > > > > > > > (but yeah, all these extra 'bioset' threads aren't ideal) > > > > > > Still there in 4.4-final. > > > > ...and still there in 4.5-rc4 :-(. > > You're directing this concern to the wrong person. > > I already told you DM is _not_ contributing any extra "bioset" threads > (ever since commit dbba42d8a).
Well, sorry about that. Note that l-k is on the cc list, so hopefully the right person sees it too.
Ok, let me check... it seems that 54efd50bfd873e2dbf784e0b21a8027ba4299a3e is responsible, thus Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> is to blame.
Um, and you acked the patch, so you are partly responsible.
> But in general, these "bioset" threads are a side-effect of the > late-bio-splitting support. So is your position on it: "I don't like > that feature if it comes at the expense of adding resources I can _see_ > for something I (naively?) view as useless"?
> Just seems... naive... but you could be trying to say something else > entirely.
> Anyway, if you don't like something: understand why it is there and then > try to fix it to your liking (without compromising why it was there to > begin with).
Well, 28 kernel threads on a notebook is a bug, plain and simple. Do you argue it is not?
Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
|  |