[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110105150048.GA32455@kvack.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:00:48 -0500
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-aio@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/32] fs/aio: aio_wq isn't used in memory reclaim path
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:50:57AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Yeap. Do you agree that the concurrency limit is necessary? If not,
> > we can just put everything onto system_wq.
>
> I'm not sure whether it's strictly necessary (there may very well be a
> need for this in the usb gadgetfs code), but keeping it the same at
> least seems safe.
Limiting concurrency on aio requests is exactly the opposite of what the
usb gadgetfs requires. It's similarly bad for filesystem aio when there's
a mix of small and large requests in flight.
-ben
--
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