On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 06:32:31AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:55:40PM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote: > > The workqueue "workqueue" has only a single workitem(&ddata->ulps_work) > > and hence doesn't require ordering. Also, it is not being used on a > > memory reclaim path. Hence, the singlethreaded workqueue has been > > replaced with the use of system_wq. > > > > System workqueues have been able to handle high level of concurrency > > for a long time now and hence it's not required to have a singlethreaded > > workqueue just to gain concurrency. Unlike a dedicated per-cpu workqueue > > created with create_singlethread_workqueue(), system_wq allows multiple > > work items to overlap executions even on the same CPU; however, a > > per-cpu workqueue doesn't have any CPU locality or global ordering > > guarantee unless the target CPU is explicitly specified and thus the > > increase of local concurrency shouldn't make any difference. > > > > dsicm_remove() calls dsicm_cancel_ulps_work which uses > > cancel_delayed_work() to ensure that there are no pending tasks while > > disconnecting the driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@xxxxxxxxx> > > Looks good. Thanks. Heh, should have been Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Sorry about that. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
