Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task

[Jens Axboe]

On Mon, Aug 24 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 08/24/2009 03:56 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe<jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    2 +-
>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index 072ba5e..35f74c9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -6580,7 +6580,7 @@ static int __init ata_init(void)
>>   {
>>   	ata_parse_force_param();
>>
>> -	ata_wq = create_workqueue("ata");
>> +	ata_wq = create_lazy_workqueue("ata");
>>   	if (!ata_wq)
>>   		goto free_force_tbl;
>
> No objections to the code, operationally...
>
> But it is disappointing that the "1 thread on UP" problem is not solved  
> while changing this libata area.  Is there no way to specify a minimum  
> lazy-thread count?
>
> A key problem continues to be tying to the number of CPUs, which is  
> quite inappropriate for libata.

We'll solve that next, the first problem is reducing the per-cpu
threads. Lots of places use per-cpu workqueues because that is what is
available, not necessarily because it's an appropriate choice. Like the
ata_wq above, it's not even a good fit.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/