On Mon, 10 June 2013 11:00:49 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 06/10/2013 10:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > Why can't we use a work item per command? Linking things into a list > > just to queue it up to workqueues missed half of the point of the > > workqueue infrastructure. > > > Hmm. I felt that using a per command workqueue might be a bit excessive. > Also the current semantics call for a synchronous command abort. > So even using a per command workqueue won't buy us anything as the > workqueue item would have to wait for the command abort to complete, > which again is quite a waste. Not sure if you confuse workqueue with workitem. Either way, using a single work item to handle a queue of commands does not fly and we either have to use per-command work items or abandon work queues and use a kernel thread. The middle ground is either racy or useless. I don't care too much whether we use per-command work items or a single system-global thread. This shouldn't ever become a hot path or the system is screwed anyway. The only problem with our current error handling is that even rare errors can effectively break the system. Jörn -- Victory in war is not repetitious. -- Sun Tzu -- 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
