[PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1
This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c index 9cf7dfe..a55ca7a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c @@ -1536,11 +1536,9 @@ int i915_driver_load(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned long flags) * * All tasks on the workqueue are expected to acquire the dev mutex * so there is no point in running more than one instance of the - * workqueue at any time: max_active = 1 and NON_REENTRANT. + * workqueue at any time. Use an ordered one. */ - dev_priv->wq = alloc_workqueue("i915", - WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_NON_REENTRANT, - 1); + dev_priv->wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("i915", 0); if (dev_priv->wq == NULL) { DRM_ERROR("Failed to create our workqueue.\n"); ret = -ENOMEM;
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org wrote:
This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk -Chris
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org wrote:
This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Acked-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch for merging through any tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next? -Daniel
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org wrote:
This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Acked-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch for merging through any tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next?
I think it would be better to route this one through drm-intel-next. WQ_NON_REENTRANT won't be deprecated until after the next -rc1 anyway.
Thanks!
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22:27PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org wrote:
This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Acked-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch for merging through any tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next?
I think it would be better to route this one through drm-intel-next. WQ_NON_REENTRANT won't be deprecated until after the next -rc1 anyway.
Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Chris Wilson -
Daniel Vetter -
Tejun Heo