Ping! Thanks, Bhaktipriya On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 02:36:32PM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote: >> System workqueues have been able to handle high level of concurrency >> for a long time now and there's no reason to use dedicated workqueues >> just to gain concurrency. Since the workqueue host->intr_wq is involved >> in sync point interrupts, and sync point wait and is not being used on >> a memory reclaim path, dedicated host->intr_wq has been replaced with the >> use of system_wq. >> >> Unlike a dedicated per-cpu workqueue created with create_workqueue(), >> system_wq allows multiple work items to overlap executions even on >> the same CPU; however, a per-cpu workqueue doesn't have any CPU >> locality or global ordering guarantees unless the target CPU is >> explicitly specified and thus the increase of local concurrency >> shouldn't make any difference. >> >> cancel_work_sync() has been used in _host1x_free_syncpt_irq() to ensure >> that no work is pending by the time exit path runs. > > Alternatively, this could have used alloc_workqueue() w/o > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM and used it just as a flush domain. Either way is > fine. > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
