From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:03:11 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20180926214433.13512.30289.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180926215143.13512.56522.stgit@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Cc: linux-nvdimm , Greg KH , Linux-pm mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , "Brown, Len" , Dave Jiang , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Vishal L Verma , jiangshanlai@gmail.com, Pavel Machek , zwisler@kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 9/27/2018 12:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:24 AM Alexander Duyck > wrote: > [..] >>>> - * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later. >>>> - * @domain may be used in the async_synchronize_*_domain() functions to >>>> - * wait within a certain synchronization domain rather than globally. A >>>> - * synchronization domain is specified via @domain. Note: This function >>>> - * may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts. >>>> + * Device specific version of async_schedule_near_domain that provides some >>>> + * NUMA awareness based on the device node. >>>> + */ >>>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_dev_domain(async_func_t func, struct device *dev, >>>> + struct async_domain *domain) >>>> +{ >>>> + return async_schedule_near_domain(func, dev, dev_to_node(dev), domain); >>>> +} >>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_dev_domain); >>> >>> This seems unnecessary and restrictive. Callers may want to pass >>> something other than dev as the parameter to the async function, and >>> dev_to_node() is not on onerous burden to place on callers. >> >> >> That is what async_schedule_near_domain is for, they can call that. The >> "dev" versions of the calls as just supposed to be helpers since one of >> the most common parameters to the async_schedule calls is a device, so I >> thought I would just put together a function that takes care of all this >> for us so I could drop an argument and avoid having to use dev_to_node >> everywhere. > > Yeah, makes sense, I guess I was reacting to the fact that this > expands the number of exports unnecessarily. The other async routines > are exported because they hide internal implementation details of the > async implementation. The async_schedule_dev* helpers can just be > static inline wrappers. I can do them as inline wrappers for the next patch set. Shouldn't be too much of an issue. Thanks. - Alex