From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:26:34 -0800 Message-ID: <20120216162634.GE24986@google.com> References: <32626.1329405744@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32626.1329405744-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Howells Cc: Alan Stern , Steve French , Chris Ball , David Airlie , Linux-pm mailing list , linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mmc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, keyrings-6DNke4IJHB0gsBAKwltoeQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:22:24PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Alan Stern wrote: > > > My question to all of you: Should system_nrt_wq be made freezable, or > > should I create a new workqueue that is both freezable and > > non-reentrant? And if I do, which of the usages above should be > > converted to the new workqueue? > > As far as keys are concerned, it's only for garbage collection purposes, so > having it freezable shouldn't be a problem. If freezing is not strictly necessary, please avoid marking it as freezable. Thanks. -- tejun