Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:44986 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755625AbbJIVZB (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:25:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:24:59 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Jeff Layton Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: use a multithreaded workqueue for nfsd4_callbacks Message-ID: <20151009212459.GF8188@fieldses.org> References: <1443875882-12089-1-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1443875882-12089-1-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 08:38:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > I don't see any need to order callbacks with respect to one another. I thought the code in nfsd4_process_cb_update really depended on this. The locking it has is against nfsd threads, it probably assumes it's only run from a cb thread and that it's the only one running at a time. But I haven't reviewed it lately. --b. > Also, these are generally not involved in memory reclaim, so I don't see > the need for a rescuer thread here either. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > --- > fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c > index e7f50c4081d6..7dabbb436290 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c > @@ -1017,7 +1017,7 @@ static const struct rpc_call_ops nfsd4_cb_ops = { > > int nfsd4_create_callback_queue(void) > { > - callback_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("nfsd4_callbacks"); > + callback_wq = alloc_workqueue("%s", WQ_UNBOUND, 0, "nfsd4_callbacks"); > if (!callback_wq) > return -ENOMEM; > return 0; > -- > 2.4.3