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

[Alexander Duyck]

On 9/27/2018 12:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:24 AM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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