From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752726AbZHXQcI (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:32:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752413AbZHXQcG (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:32:06 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:53253 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752542AbZHXQcF (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:32:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4A92C081.50207@garzik.org> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:32:01 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Axboe CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, htejun@gmail.com, bzolnier@gmail.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task References: <1251100616-28604-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1251100616-28604-5-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <1251100616-28604-5-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.2.5 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/24/2009 03:56 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe > --- > 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. Jeff