[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160607181005.GA6233@Karyakshetra>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:40:06 +0530
From: Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>
To: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Erez Shitrit <erezsh@...lanox.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] IB/core: Remove create_workqueue
alloc_workqueue replaces deprecated create_workqueue().
A dedicated workqueue has been used since cm.wq has workitem
&cm_id_priv->timewait_info->work.work (maps to cm_work_handler) is
involved in normal device operation. When a cm mad is received, it is
queued to a cm workqueue for processing. The queued work item references
the port and device on which the mad was received. WQ_MEM_RECLAIM has been
set to ensure forward progress under memory pressure.
Since there are only a fixed number of work
items, explicit concurrency limit is unnecessary here.
Is the workqueue being used on a memory reclaim path?
Does it require WQ_MEM_RECLAIM?
Thanks.
Signed-off-by: Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>
---
drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
index 1d92e09..e335d0b 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
@@ -4004,7 +4004,7 @@ static int __init ib_cm_init(void)
goto error1;
}
- cm.wq = create_workqueue("ib_cm");
+ cm.wq = alloc_workqueue("ib_cm", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
if (!cm.wq) {
ret = -ENOMEM;
goto error2;
--
2.1.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists