Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752859Ab1DSOkI (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.31]:46653 "EHLO mx2.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752192Ab1DSOkH (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:07 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1303224004-01de284cf8166670001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4DAD9EC5.4030400@fusionio.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:40:05 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Snitzer CC: Christoph Hellwig , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: block: add blk_run_queue_async References: <20110418092647.GB3837@infradead.org> <20110418195929.GA9650@infradead.org> <20110418202053.GA29394@redhat.com> <20110418214818.GA2217@redhat.com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: block: add blk_run_queue_async In-Reply-To: <20110418214818.GA2217@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1303224004 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.181:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.61318 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1410 Lines: 40 On 2011-04-18 23:48, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18 2011 at 4:20pm -0400, > Mike Snitzer wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18 2011 at 3:59pm -0400, >> Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 03:55:04PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>>>> +{ >>>>> + ? ? ? if (likely(!blk_queue_stopped(q))) >>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? queue_delayed_work(kblockd_workqueue, &q->delay_work, 0); >>>> >>>> I know Jens already queued this up 'for-linus' but why not use >>>> kblockd_schedule_work(q, &q->delay_work)? >>> >>> I don't see what that would buy us. If we'd absolutely want a wrapper >>> a blk_delay_queue(q, 0) in Jens' current tree would do it now that is >>> has been fixed up to use the kblockd workqueue. >> >> Right, I missed 4521cc4 block: blk_delay_queue() should use kblockd >> workqueue. So why not use blk_delay_queue()? >> >> I agree with Jens that it doesn't much matter but I also cannot see it >> being a bad thing.. I'd prefer it ;) >> >> *shrug* > > Also, FYI, I'm seeing a leftover '@force_kblockd: ...' comment in the > __blk_run_queue's comment block. Thanks Mike, I've killed that now. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/