On 11/20/2015 11:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:52:21AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> One thing, though: I don't really agree with Barts objection that >> moving to a workqueue would tie in too many resources. >> Thing is, I'm not convinces that using a work queue is allocating >> too many resources (we're speaking of 460 vs 240 bytes here). >> Also we have to retry commands for quite some time (cite the >> infamous NetApp takeover/giveback, which can take minutes). >> If we were to handle that without workqueue we'd have to initiate >> the retry from the end_io callback, causing a quite deep stack >> recursion. Which I'm not really fond of. >> >> But if anyone has a better idea on how to handle retries without the >> need for workqueues I'm all ears :-) > > I tend to agree with you, but you better warm up that discussion again > on the old thread that actually has Bart on Cc. Or just resend once > Martin has merged this patch, and have discussion around that version. > Fully agree. So I'm waiting for Martin to pick up the patches first. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- 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
