Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task

[Jeff Garzik]

On 08/24/2009 12:45 PM, John Stoffel wrote:
> > > > > > "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik<jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>  writes:
> Jeff>  No objections to the code, operationally...
>
> Jeff>  But it is disappointing that the "1 thread on UP" problem is not
> Jeff>  solved while changing this libata area.  Is there no way to
> Jeff>  specify a minimum lazy-thread count?
>
> Jeff>  A key problem continues to be tying to the number of CPUs, which
> Jeff>  is quite inappropriate for libata.
>
> So should the minimum number be the NumATADisks on the system?  Actual
> or potential?  I've got a system with dual CPUs and two IDE disk, two
> SATA disks and two SCSI disks, plus two SCSI Tape drives.  All on
> seperate controllers... how would that work?

Technically speaking, the maximum is the number of PIO-polling devices.

Theoretically this can change with hotplugging, but that is _very_ rare 
-- mainly PATA+media bay situations, or bridged SATA with an ancient 
PATA device.

	Jeff




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/