Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node

[Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>]

On 9/27/2018 12:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:24 AM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> [..]
>>>> - * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>>>> - * @domain may be used in the async_synchronize_*_domain() functions to
>>>> - * wait within a certain synchronization domain rather than globally.  A
>>>> - * synchronization domain is specified via @domain.  Note: This function
>>>> - * may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>>>> + * Device specific version of async_schedule_near_domain that provides some
>>>> + * NUMA awareness based on the device node.
>>>> + */
>>>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_dev_domain(async_func_t func, struct device *dev,
>>>> +                                        struct async_domain *domain)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, dev, dev_to_node(dev), domain);
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_dev_domain);
>>>
>>> This seems unnecessary and restrictive. Callers may want to pass
>>> something other than dev as the parameter to the async function, and
>>> dev_to_node() is not on onerous burden to place on callers.
>>
>>
>> That is what async_schedule_near_domain is for, they can call that. The
>> "dev" versions of the calls as just supposed to be helpers since one of
>> the most common parameters to the async_schedule calls is a device, so I
>> thought I would just put together a function that takes care of all this
>> for us so I could drop an argument and avoid having to use dev_to_node
>> everywhere.
> 
> Yeah, makes sense, I guess I was reacting to the fact that this
> expands the number of exports unnecessarily. The other async routines
> are exported because they hide internal implementation details of the
> async implementation. The async_schedule_dev* helpers can just be
> static inline wrappers.

I can do them as inline wrappers for the next patch set. Shouldn't be 
too much of an issue.

Thanks.

- Alex