On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:22:37AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:37:35PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > Did you test this patch? Did you notice the memory reclaim path nature > > of this work? > > The conversion uses WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, which is standard for all > workqueues which can stall packet processing if stalled. The > requirement comes from nfs or block devices over network. The title stays "remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue" and if we put aside the word "deprecated", the code moves from ordered workqueue to unordered workqueue and changes max_active count which isn't expressed in commit message. For reclaim paths, I want to be extra caution and want to see justification for doing that along with understanding if it is tested or not. Right now, I'm feeling that I'm participating in soapie where one sends patch for every line, waits and sends the same patch for another file. It is worth to send one patch set and let us to test it all in once. Thanks. > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
