[Cluster-devel] GFS2: Use new workqueue scheme

[Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 09:52 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 09/13/2010 08:26 PM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> >>From 29e8eb2a793cbf7ccba398b93f362a17f8cb4e6a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
> > Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:23:00 +0100
> > Subject: GFS2: Use new workqueue scheme
> 
> The changes look good to me.
> 
>   Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> 
> > -	glock_workqueue = create_workqueue("glock_workqueue");
> > +	glock_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("glock_workqueue", WQ_RESCUER |
> > +					  WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_FREEZEABLE, 0);
> 
> Maybe explaning why HIGHPRI is necessary here would be a good idea?
> 
Thanks for the review, I've updated that in the version now pushed into
my -nmw GFS2 tree.

> > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/main.c b/fs/gfs2/main.c
> > index b1e9630..1c8bbf2 100644
> > --- a/fs/gfs2/main.c
> > +++ b/fs/gfs2/main.c
> > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ static int __init init_gfs2_fs(void)
> >  
> >  	error = -ENOMEM;
> >  	gfs_recovery_wq = alloc_workqueue("gfs_recovery",
> > -					  WQ_NON_REENTRANT | WQ_RESCUER, 0);
> > +					  WQ_RESCUER | WQ_FREEZEABLE, 0);
> 
> GFS2 was already using alloc_workqueue() before this patch?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
Yes, due to this patch:

commit 6ecd7c2dd9f5dd4f6e8f65c8027159f9c73b0e4c
Author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue Jul 20 22:09:02 2010 +0200

    gfs2: use workqueue instead of slow-work

:-)

Steve.