Re: [driver-core PATCH v6 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node

From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	zwisler@kernel.org, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	bvanassche@acm.org
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v6 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:53:20 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hofCTYMNN=Ow=o4RRuUPM=GLWajNAT9q6WWkuV47te_w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181111193208.GB8332@kroah.com>

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:32 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:06:50AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > Introduce four new variants of the async_schedule_ functions that allow
> > scheduling on a specific NUMA node.
> >
> > The first two functions are async_schedule_near and
> > async_schedule_near_domain end up mapping to async_schedule and
> > async_schedule_domain, but provide NUMA node specific functionality. They
> > replace the original functions which were moved to inline function
> > definitions that call the new functions while passing NUMA_NO_NODE.
> >
> > The second two functions are async_schedule_dev and
> > async_schedule_dev_domain which provide NUMA specific functionality when
> > passing a device as the data member and that device has a NUMA node other
> > than NUMA_NO_NODE.
> >
> > The main motivation behind this is to address the need to be able to
> > schedule device specific init work on specific NUMA nodes in order to
> > improve performance of memory initialization.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
>
> No one else from Intel has reviewed/verified this code at all?
>
> Please take advantages of the resources you have that most people do
> not, get reviewes from your coworkers please before you send this out
> again, as they can give you valuable help before the community has to
> review the code...

I tend to be suspicious of code that arrives on the mailing list
day-one with a series of company-internal reviewed-by tags. Sometimes
there is preliminary work that can be done internally, but I think we
should prefer to do review in the open as much as possible where it
does not waste community time. Alex and I did reach a general internal
consensus to send this out and get community feedback, but I assumed
to do the bulk of the review in parallel with everyone else. That said
I think it's fine to ask for some other acks before you take a look,
but let's do that in the open.