[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160317132110.GP21104@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:21:10 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Eva Rachel Retuya <eraretuya@...il.com>,
outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com, emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com,
linuxwifi@...el.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: dvm: convert create_singlethread_workqueue() to
alloc_workqueue()
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:43:22PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 20:37 +0800, Eva Rachel Retuya wrote:
> > Use alloc_workqueue() to allocate the workqueue instead of
> > create_singlethread_workqueue() since the latter is deprecated and is
> > scheduled for removal.
>
> Scheduled where?
They've been deprecated for years now. I should note that in the
header.
> > static void iwl_setup_deferred_work(struct iwl_priv *priv)
> > {
> > - priv->workqueue = create_singlethread_workqueue(DRV_NAME);
> > + priv->workqueue = alloc_workqueue(DRV_NAME, WQ_HIGHPRI |
> > WQ_UNBOUND |
> > + WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1);
>
> Seems like you should use alloc_ordered_workqueue() though? That also
> gets you UNBOUND immediately, and the "1".
Right, this one should have been alloc_ordered_workqueue().
> I'm not really sure HIGHPRI is needed either.
So, no WQ_MEM_RECLAIM either then, I suppose? What are the latency
requirements here - what happens if a thermal management work gets
delayed?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists