On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:29:51 -0800 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > These should all be freezable and we might even be able to get away > > with WQ_UNBOUND for some of these. > > In general, I would recommend specifying as few special attribute as > possible. If WQ_UNBOUND is necessary (large amount of CPU cycles > consumed, extremely high concurrency), sure, but I think we're > generally better off using as default attributes as possible. It just > makes things much easier later when we need to implement new features > or update the implementation. > Ok, fair enough. Probably no need to make it unbound... > > I think we put most of these in system_nrt_wq because Tejun put an > > earlier job into that queue when he converted it from slow_work and we > > just cargo-cult copied that... > > > > I'll spend some time looking at this in the next day or two, but I > > suspect that the right answer is to just move these off of the "public" > > workqueues altogether. > > If freezing & nrt is everything necessary, just create > system_nrt_freezable_wq and use that. > The other problem here is that we really ought to be submitting the write completion handler to a workqueue that has WQ_MEM_RECLAIM set. Since none of the public wq's have that then I guess we'll have to make our own? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
