[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111122213257.GF5663@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:32:57 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: initialize request_queue's numa node during
allocation
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:19:58PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
[..]
> > Storing q->node info at queue allocation time makes sense to me. In fact
> > it might make sense to clean it up from blk_init_allocated_queue_node
> > and assume that passed queue has queue->node set at the allocation time.
> >
> > CCing Mike Snitzer who introduced blk_init_allocated_queue_node(). Mike
> > what do you think. I am not sure it makes sense to pass in nodeid, both
> > at queue allocation and queue initialization time. To me, it should make
> > more sense to allocate the queue at one node and that becomes the default
> > node for reset of the initialization.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense to me too:
>
> From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
> Subject: block: initialize request_queue's numa node during allocation
>
> Set request_queue's node in blk_alloc_queue_node() rather than
> blk_init_allocated_queue_node(). This avoids blk_throtl_init() using
> q->node before it is initialized.
>
> Rename blk_init_allocated_queue_node() to blk_init_allocated_queue().
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Thanks Mike. Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
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