From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on gnuweeb.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM,URIBL_BLOCKED
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org (unknown [182.2.39.140])
	by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A06DC831EE;
	Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:42:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gnuweeb.org;
	s=default; t=1677505366;
	bh=sPMDNczqziOn29+Dhl16L3xNY5YIHG7rWMEp6/Gq5uY=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=BuXtL1GppH1wQW8Q9hth0QwTBc8n5vLNgDjnfqM322/I9Vvl1VVn/XHxMdG6dlef5
	 6QYC0/T1kAya1lzJsDd/0wcZExODJgc1DTW7E9islsADWEL+6jX1AqjeLddLEq00TT
	 kcthdylzgNMJyIywzUOPFJ1S7brs93pGp1K3rhaBwvGJRO0SAUC9iHrAB1GhlUOAPZ
	 y0oGkcrDtKl4K6sd7wZgHrsVwT5rMP3AQs1pbddQ5EC75Y1H/1Twj2JtwDE+yFnj8t
	 Z5OJ3r7v+uRVKmggYDlrDpM2GgM11yK9qW71gzmlNNfnb8bEBbtG9oACJLW1nLBkIo
	 bGH91GxKPXZtQ==
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:42:35 +0700
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
	Linux Btrfs Mailing List <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Fsdevel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Introducing `wq_cpu_set` mount option for
 btrfs
Message-ID: <Y/yzS7aQ6PDyFsbm@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org>
References: <20230226160259.18354-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
 <19732428-010d-582c-0aed-9dd09b11d403@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19732428-010d-582c-0aed-9dd09b11d403@gmx.com>
X-Bpl: hUx9VaHkTWcLO7S8CQCslj6OzqBx2hfLChRz45nPESx5VSB/xuJQVOKOB1zSXE3yc9ntP27bV1M1
List-Id: <gwml.vger.gnuweeb.org>

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 06:18:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: 
> I'm not sure if pinning the wq is really the best way to your problem.
> 
> Yes, I understand you want to limit the CPU usage of btrfs workqueues, but
> have you tried "thread_pool=" mount option?
> 
> That mount option should limit the max amount of in-flight work items, thus
> at least limit the CPU usage.

I have tried to use the thread_poll=%u mount option previously. But I
didn't observe the effect intensively. I'll try to play with this option
more and see if it can yield the desired behavior.

> For the wq CPU pinning part, I'm not sure if it's really needed, although
> it's known CPU pinning can affect some performance characteristics.

What I like about CPU pinning is that we can dedicate CPUs for specific
workloads so it won't cause scheduling noise to the app we've dedicated
other CPUs for.

-- 
Ammar Faizi