[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201021045257.GC3004521@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 21:52:57 -0700
From: jaegeuk@...nel.org
To: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] scsi: ufs: use WQ_HIGHPRI for gating work
On 10/21, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-10-21 03:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...gle.com>
> >
> > Must have WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
> > ``WQ_MEM_RECLAIM``
> > All wq which might be used in the memory reclaim paths **MUST**
> > have this flag set. The wq is guaranteed to have at least one
> > execution context regardless of memory pressure.
> >
>
> You misunderstood my point. I meant you need to give more info about why
> we are adding WQ_HIGHPRI flag but not why WQ_MEM_RECLAIM must be there.
Oh, I thought that WQ_HIGHPRI is telling everything tho.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Can Guo.
>
> > Cc: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
> > Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>
> > Cc: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > index feb10ebf7a35..0858c0b55eac 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -1867,7 +1867,7 @@ static void ufshcd_init_clk_gating(struct ufs_hba
> > *hba)
> > snprintf(wq_name, ARRAY_SIZE(wq_name), "ufs_clk_gating_%d",
> > hba->host->host_no);
> > hba->clk_gating.clk_gating_workq = alloc_ordered_workqueue(wq_name,
> > - WQ_MEM_RECLAIM);
> > + WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI);
> >
> > hba->clk_gating.is_enabled = true;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists