Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:45:14 -0400 | From | "John Stoffel" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task |
| |
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
Jeff> On 08/24/2009 03:56 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe<jens.axboe@oracle.com> >> --- >> drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> index 072ba5e..35f74c9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c >> @@ -6580,7 +6580,7 @@ static int __init ata_init(void) >> { >> ata_parse_force_param(); >> >> - ata_wq = create_workqueue("ata"); >> + ata_wq = create_lazy_workqueue("ata"); >> if (!ata_wq) >> goto free_force_tbl;
Jeff> No objections to the code, operationally...
Jeff> But it is disappointing that the "1 thread on UP" problem is not Jeff> solved while changing this libata area. Is there no way to Jeff> specify a minimum lazy-thread count?
Jeff> A key problem continues to be tying to the number of CPUs, which Jeff> is quite inappropriate for libata.
So should the minimum number be the NumATADisks on the system? Actual or potential? I've got a system with dual CPUs and two IDE disk, two SATA disks and two SCSI disks, plus two SCSI Tape drives. All on seperate controllers... how would that work?
John
| |