From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:17465 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751860Ab3JBBt2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:49:28 -0400 Message-ID: <524B7BD6.4090403@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:50:14 +0800 From: Qu Wenruo MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] btrfs: Replace the btrfs_workers with kernel workqueue References: <1378973304-11693-1-git-send-email-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130912173718.GE6810@twin.jikos.cz> <523BE774.4070808@cn.fujitsu.com> <20131001145050.GJ18291@twin.jikos.cz> In-Reply-To: <20131001145050.GJ18291@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:50:50 +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 02:13:08PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> * WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for the scrub thread does not seem right >> I think scrub_workers,scrub_wr_completion_workers still need WQ_MEM_RECLAIM. >> However scrub_nocow_workers does not need WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flags. >> >> Did you mean this? >> >> If you didn't mean this, would you please tell me why the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM is >> not >> needed? > Documentation says that threads that might be used in the memory reclaim > path must use this flag, but I don't see how this applies to scrub > threads. They're not writing out dirty data, though they may issue a > write, but that's not their main purpose. > Thanks for your explain. I understand now, and will remove the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flagsin the recent V3 patches. -- ----------------------------------------------------- Qu Wenruo Development Dept.I Nanjing Fujitsu Nanda Software Tech. Co., Ltd.(FNST) No. 6 Wenzhu Road, Nanjing, 210012, China TEL: +86+25-86630566-8526 COINS: 7998-8526 FAX: +86+25-83317685 MAIL: quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com -----------------------------------------------------