From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:58:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20120206165836.GJ6890@quack.suse.cz> References: <1327698949-12616-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> <1327698949-12616-3-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> <20120202173120.GA6640@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Moyer Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53560 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755397Ab2BFQ6i (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:58:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon 06-02-12 11:20:29, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Jan Kara writes: > > >> + /* workqueue for aio+dio+o_sync disk cache flushing */ > >> + struct workqueue_struct *aio_dio_flush_wq; > >> + > > Hmm, looking at the patch I'm wondering why did you introduce the new > > workqueue? It seems dio_unwritten_wq would be enough? You just need to > > rename it to something more appropriate ;) > > I used a new workqueue as the operations are blocking, and I didn't want > to hold up other progress. If you think re-using the unwritten_wq is > the right thing to do, I'm happy to comply. Ah, ok. Thinking about it, it's probably better to use a separate work queue then. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR