[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19090.50074.62901.633104@stoffel.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:45:14 -0400
From: "John Stoffel" <john@...ffel.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, 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
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> writes:
Jeff> 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;
Jeff> No objections to the code, operationally...
Jeff> But it is disappointing that the "1 thread on UP" problem is not
Jeff> solved while changing this libata area. Is there no way to
Jeff> specify a minimum lazy-thread count?
Jeff> A key problem continues to be tying to the number of CPUs, which
Jeff> is quite inappropriate for libata.
So should the minimum number be the NumATADisks on the system? Actual
or potential? I've got a system with dual CPUs and two IDE disk, two
SATA disks and two SCSI disks, plus two SCSI Tape drives. All on
seperate controllers... how would that work?
John
--
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