From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933152AbcFGSQZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:16:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f66.google.com ([209.85.220.66]:35105 "EHLO mail-pa0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932522AbcFGSQY (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:16:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:46:17 +0530 From: Bhaktipriya Shridhar To: Bart Van Assche , Doug Ledford , Sean Hefty , Hal Rosenstock Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC] IB/srp: Remove create_workqueue Message-ID: <20160607181617.GA6556@Karyakshetra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org alloc_workqueue replaces deprecated create_workqueue(). A dedicated workqueue has been used since the workqueue srp_remove_wq with workitem &target->remove_work, is a work queue for the SRP target removal. WQ_MEM_RECLAIM has been set to ensure forward progress under memory pressure. Since there are only a fixed number of work items, explicit concurrency limit is unnecessary here. Is the workqueue being used on a memory reclaim path? Does it require WQ_MEM_RECLAIM? Thanks. Signed-off-by: Bhaktipriya Shridhar --- drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c index 646de17..1730d1f 100644 --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c @@ -3685,7 +3685,7 @@ static int __init srp_init_module(void) indirect_sg_entries = cmd_sg_entries; } - srp_remove_wq = create_workqueue("srp_remove"); + srp_remove_wq = alloc_workqueue("srp_remove", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0); if (!srp_remove_wq) { ret = -ENOMEM; goto out; -- 2.1.4