On Fri 2014-11-14 08:19:15, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Michael, Petr. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:32:04PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > + /* The workqueue servicing the balloon. */ > > > + struct workqueue_struct *wq; > > > + struct work_struct wq_work; > > > > We could use system_freezable_wq instead. > > I do agree a dedicated wq is better since this can get blocked > > for a long time while allocating memory. > > However, please add a comment to this effect. > > system_freezable_wq should be fine. Workqueues by default have a > pretty high maximum concurrency level (256). There's no reason to > create separate workqueues solely for that purpose. Great. If nobody complains until next week, I will send an updated patch with the system workqueue and also with the fixed typos. Thanks all reviewers for nice hints. Best Regards, Petr _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
