From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752760AbdJaMbT (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:31:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33226 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751172AbdJaMbR (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:31:17 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 960B2624C9 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=cavery@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: storvsc: Allow only one remove lun work item to be issued per lun To: "Martin K. Petersen" References: <1508261721-24144-1-git-send-email-cavery@redhat.com> <20171019153510.GA7633@infradead.org> <20171021154444.GK1302522@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Tejun Heo , kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org From: Cathy Avery Message-ID: <59F86D13.1010708@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:31:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/31/2017 08:24 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>> If you use alloc_ordered_workqueue directly instead of >>> create_singlethread_workqueue you can pass a format string and don't >>> need the separate allocation. >>> >>> But I'm not sure if Tejun is fine with using __WQ_LEGACY directly.. >> The only thing that flag does is exempting the workqueue from possible >> flush deadlock check as we don't know whether WQ_MEM_RECLAIM on a >> legacy workqueue is intentional. There's no reason to add it when >> converting to alloc_ordered_workqueue(). Just decide whether it needs >> forward progress guarantee and use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM if so. > Cathy? > Sorry for the delay. Long was working on a similar problem and we needed to add a couple of extra patches. I was thinking of sending all three in series but I can send the V3 of this now and follow up with the additional patches. Does that make sense?