From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] workqueue: Make too_many_workers() return the worker excess
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 10:17:39 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y30uY/Y8pffIhrUp@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221122192937.2386494-4-vschneid@redhat.com>
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 07:29:35PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
...
> The function currently returns true when
> (nr_idle - 2) * MAX_IDLE_WORKERS_RATIO >= nr_busy
> thus, the desired number of idle workers is expressed by
> (nr_idle - 2) * MAX_IDLE_WORKERS_RATIO == nr_busy - 1
> IOW
> nr_idle == ((nr_busy - 1) / MAX_IDLE_WORKERS_RATIO) + 2
> +/* How many idle workers should we get rid of, if any? */
> +static unsigned int worker_cull_count(struct worker_pool *pool)
Can we name it nr_workers_to_cull()?
> {
> bool managing = pool->flags & POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
> int nr_idle = pool->nr_idle + managing; /* manager is considered idle */
> int nr_busy = pool->nr_workers - nr_idle;
>
> - return nr_idle > 2 && (nr_idle - 2) * MAX_IDLE_WORKERS_RATIO >= nr_busy;
> + lockdep_assert_held(&pool->lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * We keep at least 2 spare idle workers, but overall aim to keep at
> + * most (1 / MAX_IDLE_WORKERS_RATIO) workers idle.
> + */
> + return max(0, nr_idle - 2 - ((nr_busy - 1) / MAX_IDLE_WORKERS_RATIO));
I think we can do away with the subtraction on nr_busy. I don't think it'd
make any material difference, so maybe we can do:
return max(0, nr_idle - 2 - nr_busy / MAX_IDLE_WORKERS_RATIO);
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-22 20:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-22 19:29 [PATCH v5 0/5] workqueue: destroy_worker() vs isolated CPUs Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 19:29 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] workqueue: Protects wq_unbound_cpumask with wq_pool_attach_mutex Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 19:29 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] workqueue: Factorize unbind/rebind_workers() logic Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 19:29 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] workqueue: Make too_many_workers() return the worker excess Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 20:17 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2022-11-28 11:24 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 19:29 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] workqueue: Convert the idle_timer to a timer + work_struct Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 20:23 ` Tejun Heo
2022-11-28 11:24 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 19:29 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] workqueue: Unbind kworkers before sending them to exit() Valentin Schneider
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y30uY/Y8pffIhrUp@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®