lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 17/32] scsi/ibmvstgt: use system_wq instead of vtgtd workqueue
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 05:24:14PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 05:09:18PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Insertion of flush_work_sync() fixes a race - that's a good catch.
> > flush_work_sync() should be invoked a little earlier though because
> > the scheduled work may access the queue destroyed by the
> > crq_queue_destroy(target) call. And the CRQ interrupt should be
> > disabled from before flush_work_sync() is invoked until after the CRQ
> > has been destroyed.
>
> Heh, I'm a bit out of my depth here. If you know what's necessary,
> please go ahead and make the change.
>
> > Regarding the queue removal: I might have missed something, but why
> > would you like to remove the vtgtd work queue ? Since the ibmvstgt
> > driver is a storage target driver, processing latency matters. I'm
> > afraid that switching from a dedicated queue to the global work queue
> > will increase processing latency.
>
> Having a dedicated workqueue no longer makes any difference regarding
> processing latency. Each workqueue is mere frontend to the shared
> worker pool anyway. Dedicated workqueues are now meaningful only as
> forward progress guarantee, attribute and/or flush domain - IOW, when
> the workqueue needs to be used during memory reclaim, the work items
> need to have specific attributes or certain group of work items need
> to be flushed together. Apart from that, there's virtually no
> difference between using the system_wq and a dedicated one. As using
> the system one is usually simpler, it's natural to do that.

Ping. Are you interested in doing the conversion?

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-01 11:43    [W:0.108 / U:18.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site