From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42503 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753137AbaGHGqr (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2014 02:46:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 23:46:41 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: NeilBrown Cc: Trond Myklebust , Chuck Lever , NFS Subject: Re: Is there a good reason that nfs4_state_manager should use a work_queue? Message-ID: <20140708064641.GA16497@infradead.org> References: <20140708152100.67cd93c7@notabene.brown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20140708152100.67cd93c7@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:21:00PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > 2/ would it be reasonable to have a single work queue for all nfs clients? > In the worst case this could serialise reclaim across all clients so we > wouldn't want any reclaim attempt to block indefinitely. Is that likely > to be a big problem do you think? A workqueue isn't serialized, it has a max_active paramater to control the concurrency of execution.