From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751696Ab1AEP3I (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:29:08 -0500 Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([205.233.56.17]:54919 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751256Ab1AEP3H (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:29:07 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1698 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:29:07 EST Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:00:48 -0500 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Jeff Moyer Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/32] fs/aio: aio_wq isn't used in memory reclaim path Message-ID: <20110105150048.GA32455@kvack.org> References: <1294062595-30097-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1294062595-30097-22-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20110105112802.GA7669@mtj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:50:57AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > Yeap. Do you agree that the concurrency limit is necessary? If not, > > we can just put everything onto system_wq. > > I'm not sure whether it's strictly necessary (there may very well be a > need for this in the usb gadgetfs code), but keeping it the same at > least seems safe. Limiting concurrency on aio requests is exactly the opposite of what the usb gadgetfs requires. It's similarly bad for filesystem aio when there's a mix of small and large requests in flight. -ben