Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, (cc'ing Rafael and Jens) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:41:34AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: My question to all of you: Should system_nrt_wq be made freezable, or should I create a new workqueue that is both freezable and non-reentrant? And if I do, which of the usages above should be

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:22:24PM +, David Howells wrote: Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: My question to all of you: Should system_nrt_wq be made freezable, or should I create a new workqueue that is both freezable and non-reentrant? And if I do, which of the usages

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: These should all be freezable and we might even be able to get away with WQ_UNBOUND for some of these. In general, I would recommend specifying as few special attribute as possible. If WQ_UNBOUND is necessary (large amount

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Alan Stern
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, (cc'ing Rafael and Jens) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:41:34AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: My question to all of you: Should system_nrt_wq be made freezable, or should I create a new workqueue that is both freezable and non-reentrant? And if I

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Tejun Heo
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:35:51PM +, David Howells wrote: The key_garbage_collector work item is marked neither freezable nor unfreezable that I can see. Heh, was too brief apparently. :) I was trying to say that if it doesn't require freezing, please don't put it on a freezable

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Alan Stern
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: These should all be freezable and we might even be able to get away with WQ_UNBOUND for some of these. In general, I would recommend specifying as few special attribute as

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:37:33AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: Um. I don't think I can audit all the calls in the kernel that submit block requests and determine which ones need to be allowed while a system sleep is in progress. ??? we need to do that anyway and the ones which should go

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Alan Stern
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:37:33AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: Um. I don't think I can audit all the calls in the kernel that submit block requests and determine which ones need to be allowed while a system sleep is in progress. ??? we need

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Jeff. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:59:45PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: The other problem here is that we really ought to be submitting the write completion handler to a workqueue that has WQ_MEM_RECLAIM set. Since none of the public wq's have that then I guess we'll have to make our own?

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread David Howells
Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: My question to all of you: Should system_nrt_wq be made freezable, or should I create a new workqueue that is both freezable and non-reentrant? And if I do, which of the usages above should be converted to the new workqueue? As far as keys are

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread David Howells
Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: My question to all of you: Should system_nrt_wq be made freezable, or should I create a new workqueue that is both freezable and non-reentrant? And if I do, which of the usages above should be converted to the new workqueue? As far as keys are

Re: system_nrt_wq, system suspend, and the freezer

2012-02-16 Thread Jeff Layton
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:29:51 -0800 Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: Hello, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: These should all be freezable and we might even be able to get away with WQ_UNBOUND for some of these. In general, I would recommend specifying as