2012-08-22 23:41:06

by Tejun Heo

Subject: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of
WQ_NON_REENTRANT.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
index 9cf7dfe..a55ca7a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
@@ -1536,11 +1536,9 @@ int i915_driver_load(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned long flags)
*
* All tasks on the workqueue are expected to acquire the dev mutex
* so there is no point in running more than one instance of the
- * workqueue at any time: max_active = 1 and NON_REENTRANT.
+ * workqueue at any time. Use an ordered one.
*/
- dev_priv->wq = alloc_workqueue("i915",
- WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_NON_REENTRANT,
- 1);
+ dev_priv->wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("i915", 0);
if (dev_priv->wq == NULL) {
DRM_ERROR("Failed to create our workqueue.\n");
ret = -ENOMEM;

2012-08-23 08:13:29

by Chris Wilson

Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of
> WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
-Chris

--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

2012-08-23 08:43:27

by Daniel Vetter

Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of
> > WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>

Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> for merging through any
tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT
removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next?
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: [email protected]
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48

2012-08-23 19:22:35

by Tejun Heo

Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

Hello,

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of
> > > WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> for merging through any
> tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT
> removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next?

I think it would be better to route this one through drm-intel-next.
WQ_NON_REENTRANT won't be deprecated until after the next -rc1 anyway.

Thanks!

--
tejun

2012-08-23 23:13:52

by Daniel Vetter

Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22:27PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of
> > > > WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> >
> > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> for merging through any
> > tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT
> > removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next?
>
> I think it would be better to route this one through drm-intel-next.
> WQ_NON_REENTRANT won't be deprecated until after the next -rc1 anyway.

Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: [email protected]
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48