On Tue, Feb 11 2014 at 1:03pm -0500, Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/11/2014 04:55 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > >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)? > > > Precisely. > > But as this is a bit hard to trigger it might take some time. > (you'll only be hitting this issue if you have to retry > scsi_dh_activate, so you'll need to trigger this somehow). OK. > I hope to get it done this week. > Is there any deadline which I might miss with that? No, that'll be great. We have some time until the 3.15 merge window opens. Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
