[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110225161905.GG2994@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:19:05 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Dominik Klein <dk@...telegence.net>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
libvir-list@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Is it a workqueue related issue in 2.6.37 (Was: Re: [libvirt]
blkio cgroup [solved])
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:03:53AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > +int kthrotld_schedule_delayed_work(struct throtl_data *td,
> > + struct delayed_work *dwork, unsigned long delay)
> > +{
> > + return queue_delayed_work(kthrotld_workqueue, dwork, delay);
> > +}
> > +
>
> I don't think wrapping is necessary. Defining and using a workqueue
> directly should be enough.
>
> > @@ -1113,6 +1120,11 @@ void blk_throtl_exit(struct request_queu
> >
> > static int __init throtl_init(void)
> > {
> > + kthrotld_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("kthrotld",
> > + WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI, 0);
>
> And I don't think kthrotld needs to be HIGHPRI.
Ok, regenerating the patch with above change. Anyway I had to as I
generated this patch on top of some of my local commits which are
not in Linus tree yet.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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