On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 15:23 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:47:24PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
For now I wish we could just like to continue assuming the workqueue
processes only one item at a time. Do we have that now, or do we need
to switch to (looking at workqueue.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:47:24PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> For now I wish we could just like to continue assuming the workqueue
> processes only one item at a time. Do we have that now, or do we need
> to switch to (looking at workqueue.h...) alloc_ordered workqueue()?
Oh, wait, I missed
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:33:35PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 11:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:18:08AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 20:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 0
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 11:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:18:08AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 20:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Bruce.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:18:08AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 20:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Bruce.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:39:11PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > >
>
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 15:08 +, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 08:18 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 20:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hell
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 08:18 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 20:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello, Bruce.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:39:11PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 20:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Bruce.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:39:11PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >
> > > Apologies, just cleaning out old mail and finding some I should have
>
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Bruce.
>
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:39:11PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Apologies, just cleaning out old mail and finding some I should have
> > responded to long ago:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:23:48AM +0530, Bha
Hello, Bruce.
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:39:11PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Apologies, just cleaning out old mail and finding some I should have
> responded to long ago:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:23:48AM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote:
> > The workqueue "callback_wq" queues a single
Apologies, just cleaning out old mail and finding some I should have
responded to long ago:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:23:48AM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote:
> The workqueue "callback_wq" queues a single work item &cb->cb_work per
> nfsd4_callback instance and thus, it doesn't require executio
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 10:39 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jeff.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:07:23PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > Hah! I have almost exactly the same patch in my tree. I've only not
> > sent it because I haven't had the chance to test it well.
> >
> > The only differenc
Hello, Jeff.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:07:23PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Hah! I have almost exactly the same patch in my tree. I've only not
> sent it because I haven't had the chance to test it well.
>
> The only difference in mine is that it passes in WQ_UNBOUND. ISTM that
> we don't really
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 02:23 +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote:
> The workqueue "callback_wq" queues a single work item &cb->cb_work
> per
> nfsd4_callback instance and thus, it doesn't require execution
> ordering.
> Hence, alloc_workqueue has been used to replace the
> deprecated create_singlethre
The workqueue "callback_wq" queues a single work item &cb->cb_work per
nfsd4_callback instance and thus, it doesn't require execution ordering.
Hence, alloc_workqueue has been used to replace the
deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue instance.
The WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag has not been set since this
15 matches
Mail list logo
