From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752846AbZHXQqb (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:46:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752676AbZHXQqb (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:46:31 -0400 Received: from Mycroft.westnet.com ([216.187.52.7]:43443 "EHLO mycroft.westnet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752640AbZHXQqa (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:46:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19090.50074.62901.633104@stoffel.org> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:45:14 -0400 From: "John Stoffel" To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, htejun@gmail.com, bzolnier@gmail.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task In-Reply-To: <4A92C081.50207@garzik.org> References: <1251100616-28604-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1251100616-28604-5-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <4A92C081.50207@garzik.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.9 under Emacs 22.3.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik writes: Jeff> On 08/24/2009 03:56 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe >> --- >> 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