MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAP245DUWtryaxn=u=VWiSp7b9RZYjsEozX9WEHCvzMWJR6B7TQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1364740180.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
	<91239cde99aaba2715f63db1f88241d9f4a36e13.1364740180.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
	<20130331181931.GA7533@htj.dyndns.org>
	<CAKohpomGSkz6_YqDzaTYEsJfVmcg2=TvdgquWqTvd-nmtOmoaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP245DUWtryaxn=u=VWiSp7b9RZYjsEozX9WEHCvzMWJR6B7TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:25:29 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohpomtRYfGcEq9b1NmZwha4XA2=HaKsOiyShWScJi0+szfiw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] block: queue work on unbound wq
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@arm.com>,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        Steve Bannister <Steve.Bannister@arm.com>, airlied@redhat.com,
        Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@arm.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        davem@davemloft.net,
        Charles Garcia-Tobin <charles.garcia-tobin@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1292
Lines: 27

On 9 April 2013 15:23, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Later one (Power oriented WQ) can be achieved if the workqueue is allocated with
>
> Rephrase as "Power-efficient workqueues can be achieved..."

Ok.

>> WQ_UNBOUND flag. To make this compile time configurable with boot time override
>> this patch adds in another flag WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT. This will be converted to
>> WQ_UNBOUND (on wq allocation) if CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT is enabled and
>> bootargs contain workqueue.power_efficient=1. It is unused otherwise and normal
>> behavior of WQ without this flag is expected.
>
> Addition of a new flag seems a bit excessive IMHO. Why can't we just
> set the UNBOUND flag when the wq_power_efficient module param is set?
>
> It would make the patch a lot simpler too.

But how will we know if the user of wq wants to save power or not? He must
give some flag which is only used when power saving is enabled. We can't
set WQ_UNBOUND for all wqs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/