On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 10:39 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Jeff. > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:07:23PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > Hah! I have almost exactly the same patch in my tree. I've only not > > sent it because I haven't had the chance to test it well. > > > > The only difference in mine is that it passes in WQ_UNBOUND. ISTM > > that > > we don't really need a bound workqueue here since we only use this > > to > > kick off callbacks to the client. I doubt we'd get much out of > > strictly > > maintaining cache locality here, and we're better off just sending > > it > > the callback as quickly as possible. > > We recently broke strong locality guarantee for users which don't use > queue_work_on(), so the default locality is now only for optimization > instead of correctness anyway. Unless there are actual benefits to > using WQ_UNBOUND, I think in general it's better to stick with as > little attributes as possible so that we have more maneuvering room > down the line. But, yeah, if this can impact performance in subtle > ways, it could be best to just do an identity conversion at least for > now. > > Thanks. > Ahh ok, thanks...that's good to know. If you think we don't need WQ_UNBOUND then this is fine with me. Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
