From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Christie <mikenc@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: SCSI API generics (was Re: [PATCH] add block/unblock to iscsi
 class)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:03:10 -0800
Message-ID: <421D19BE.1060105@us.ibm.com>
References: <421C3CA4.8070009@cs.wisc.edu> <20050223181705.GA8694@plap.qlogic.org> <421CDFAE.4090108@us.ibm.com> <20050223220644.GJ8694@plap.qlogic.org> <421D192D.4060400@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]:45996 "EHLO
	e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261736AbVBXADD
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:03:03 -0500
Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106])
	by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1O032Lg581664
	for <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:03:02 -0500
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168])
	by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j1O032Jt166358
	for <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:03:02 -0700
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1O031eu024645
	for <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:03:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <421D192D.4060400@us.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
To: Mike Christie <mikenc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com>, Linux-SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>

Mike Christie wrote:
> Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Mike Christie wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Andrew Vasquez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking of which, are there any major objections to the patches
>>>> proposed here:
>>>>
>>>> Add scsi_target_[un]block() and scsi_target_remove() generics
>>>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110867050306738&w=2
>>>>
>>>> [RFC] adding per scsi-host workqueues for defered processing
>>>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110903148407438&w=2
>>>>
>>>
>>> When using single_threaded_workqueues do all single threaded ones
>>> in the system use the same cpu_workqueue_struct? Will this be
>>> a potential bottleneck if we end up using the workqueue for more
>>> operations in the future?
>>
>>
>>
>> The kernel-thread that is created for a single-threaded workqueue is
>> not bound to any particular CPU:
>>
>>     kthread.c:kthread()
>>
>>     ...   
>>         /* By default we can run anywhere, unlike keventd. */
>>         set_cpus_allowed(current, CPU_MASK_ALL);
>>
> 
> My question is not about which cpu it is run on.
> I am asking about the cpu_workqueue_struct. In
> create_workqueue_thread cpu always equals zero so
> later when it is run it can be on any cpu but every
> single threaded workqueue will access the same
> cpu_workqueue_struct.
> 

Oh wait nevermind that too. I should read the code more
closely next time.