[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250703114656.GE17686@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 13:46:56 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Martin Belanger <Martin.Belanger@...l.com>,
Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, David Jeffery <djeffery@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Allison <jallison@....com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] shut down devices asynchronously
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:18:48PM -0500, Stuart Hayes wrote:
> Address resource and timing issues when spawning a unique async thread
> for every device during shutdown:
> * Make the asynchronous threads able to shut down multiple devices,
> instead of spawning a unique thread for every device.
> * Modify core kernel async code with a custom wake function so it
> doesn't wake up threads waiting to synchronize every time the cookie
> changes
Given all these thread spawning issues, why can't we just go back
to the approach that kicks off shutdown asynchronously and then waits
for it without spawning all these threads?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists