[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A92C081.50207@garzik.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:32:01 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
htejun@...il.com, bzolnier@...il.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task
On 08/24/2009 03:56 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe<jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> ---
> drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 072ba5e..35f74c9 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -6580,7 +6580,7 @@ static int __init ata_init(void)
> {
> ata_parse_force_param();
>
> - ata_wq = create_workqueue("ata");
> + ata_wq = create_lazy_workqueue("ata");
> if (!ata_wq)
> goto free_force_tbl;
No objections to the code, operationally...
But it is disappointing that the "1 thread on UP" problem is not solved
while changing this libata area. Is there no way to specify a minimum
lazy-thread count?
A key problem continues to be tying to the number of CPUs, which is
quite inappropriate for libata.
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists