On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 22:09 -0500, Mike Christie wrote: > Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 22:32 -0500, Mike Christie wrote: > >> Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > >>> Since scsi_dh_activate() has become an asynchronous function, > >>> we do not need a workqueue for submitting scsi_dh_activate(). > >>> > >>> This patch just removes the workqueue that submits scsi_dh_activate(). > >>> > >> Before this is merged, we need to convert the other device handlers to > >> use blk_execute_rq_nowait or use their own workqueue_struct right? > > > > If we want those modules also behave async, then yes. > > > > But, this set of 3 patches would work fine as I made the relevant > > changes to those modules so that they work properly. > > > > What was the point of the workqueue? > > I think if you merged the patch and left the other modules as is you > would hit a problem where the multipathd work queue struct thread is > busy waiting on activate commands when it should be routing IO to paths > that do not need a activate. I am sorry for not being clear. As I mentioned in my original posting, I am working on making the other modules also async. WIll be posting those patches in a day or two. May be I will resubmit this set (with your suggestion for GFP_NOIO) along with those. In my reply (above), I was just trying to say that these set of patches work (with the caveat you noted). > > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
