[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171021154444.GK1302522@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:44:44 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>, kys@...rosoft.com,
haiyangz@...rosoft.com, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: storvsc: Allow only one remove lun work item to
be issued per lun
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 08:35:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:35:21PM -0400, Cathy Avery wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Set the error handler work queue.
> > + */
> > + snprintf(host_dev->work_q_name, sizeof(host_dev->work_q_name),
> > + "storvsc_error_wq_%d", host->host_no);
> > + host_dev->handle_error_wq =
> > + create_singlethread_workqueue(host_dev->work_q_name);
>
> If you use alloc_ordered_workqueue directly instead of
> create_singlethread_workqueue you can pass a format string and don't
> need the separate allocation.
>
> But I'm not sure if Tejun is fine with using __WQ_LEGACY directly..
The only thing that flag does is exempting the workqueue from possible
flush deadlock check as we don't know whether WQ_MEM_RECLAIM on a
legacy workqueue is intentional. There's no reason to add it when
converting to alloc_ordered_workqueue(). Just decide whether it needs
forward progress guarantee and use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM if so.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists