Return-Path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:38542 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756228AbcCXOWy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:22:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1458829358.9304.2.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [RFD] workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM usage in network drivers From: Johannes Berg To: Tejun Heo , "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Jeff Layton , "David S. Miller" , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Amitoj Kaur Chawla , kernel-team@fb.com, Johannes Weiner , Eva Rachel Retuya , Bhaktipriya Shridhar , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:22:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20160320185507.GT20028@mtj.duckdns.org> (sfid-20160320_195510_233358_7162AE83) References: <20160317164546.GT21104@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160317213216.731d1fcc@synchrony.poochiereds.net> <20160318204623.GM20028@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160318212405.GA5192@fieldses.org> <20160320185507.GT20028@mtj.duckdns.org> (sfid-20160320_195510_233358_7162AE83) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 14:55 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > If everything else is working, I'd be happy to throw in > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM but I really don't want to add it if it doesn't > actually achieve the goal.  Can a wireless person chime in here? > I think for many wireless devices the workqueue, like for iwldvm that was just changed, isn't in the packet path and thus less relevant. For some, like SDIO based chips, it's more likely to be in the packet path, so it would make sense to keep it. Of course there's always a possibility of getting disconnected and then not being able to re-establish the connection in memory pressure, but that's not something we can control/predict (the disconnection). Can of course also happen with wired if somebody pulls out the cable, but it's less reliant on memory allocations to get back to working there, I guess :) johannes