On Tue, Feb 11 2014 at 4:46am -0500, Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/10/2014 02:30 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > Just to verify, this seems to be the only outstanding question for this > > patchset? > > > > What value are you using for HZ? If this portion of the change does > > turn out to be meaningul: Rather than tieing to HZ should we just use an > > explicitly non-zero value for __pg_init_all_paths()'s @min_delay? > > > The actual amount here is irrelevant, as long as it's non-zero. > It's just there to force execution of the work item off the current > thread. I'm aware we just need a non-zero value. My concern, as originally raised by Junichi in an earlier reply when you had it as HZ/50, is that the value could be 0 if HZ is really small. While unlikely I see no point allowing the variable nature of HZ compromise passing a non-zero value here. Best to just be explicit by passing 1 or something. All said, the question of why this is actually needed remains. I trust you're working on answering that via reproducer (by not forcing the use of workqueue context)? -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
