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 08:29:51 -0800 Message-ID: <20120216162951.GF24986@google.com> References: <20120216102728.230b99ba@poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120216102728.230b99ba-vpEMnDpepFuMZCB2o+C8xQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Cc: Alan Stern , Steve French , Chris Ball , David Airlie , David Howells , 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 Hello, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > These should all be freezable and we might even be able to get away > with WQ_UNBOUND for some of these. In general, I would recommend specifying as few special attribute as possible. If WQ_UNBOUND is necessary (large amount of CPU cycles consumed, extremely high concurrency), sure, but I think we're generally better off using as default attributes as possible. It just makes things much easier later when we need to implement new features or update the implementation. > I think we put most of these in system_nrt_wq because Tejun put an > earlier job into that queue when he converted it from slow_work and we > just cargo-cult copied that... > > I'll spend some time looking at this in the next day or two, but I > suspect that the right answer is to just move these off of the "public" > workqueues altogether. If freezing & nrt is everything necessary, just create system_nrt_freezable_wq and use that. Thanks. -- tejun