On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:38:40 -0400
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robin Holt wrote:
> > We have been testing a new larger configuration and we are seeing a very
> > large scan time of init's tsk->children list. In the cases we are seeing,
> > there are numerous kernel processes created for each cpu (ie: events/0
> > ... events/<big number>, xfslogd/0 ... xfslogd/<big number>). These are
> > all on the list ahead of the processes we are currently trying to reap.
>
> What about attacking the explosion of kernel threads?
>
> As CPU counts increase, the number of per-CPU kernel threads gets really
> ridiculous.
>
> I would rather change the implementation under the hood to start per-CPU
> threads on demand, similar to a thread-pool implementation.
>
> Boxes with $BigNum CPUs probably won't ever use half of those threads.
I suspect there are quite a few kernel threads which don't really need to
be threads at all: the code would quite happily work if it was changed to
use keventd, via schedule_work() and friends. But kernel threads are
somewhat easier to code for.
I also suspect that there are a number of workqueue threads which
could/should have used create_singlethread_workqueue(). Often this is
because the developer just didn't think to do it.
otoh, a lot of these inefficeincies are probably down in scruffy drivers
rather than in core or top-level code.
<I also wonder where all these parented-by-init,
presumably-not-using-kthread kernel threads are coming from>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
