On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:07:00PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On 09/25/2012 07:39 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:48:33PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c > >> @@ -1158,17 +1158,20 @@ static void btrfs_resize_thread_pool(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > >> printk(KERN_INFO "btrfs: resize thread pool %d -> %d\n", > >> old_pool_size, new_pool_size); > >> > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, new_pool_size); > >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, min(1, new_pool_size)); > > > > How could new_pool_size be < 1 ? > > > > There's a check in super.c to pick only values > 0 > > I think we just need only 1 generic_worker I got it reversed, sorry for the noise. > >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->workers, new_pool_size); > >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delalloc_workers, new_pool_size); > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, new_pool_size); > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, new_pool_size); > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, new_pool_size); > >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, > >> + min_t(u64, fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices, > >> + new_pool_size)); > > > > This ask for update also when a new device is added/removed. > > > > Oh, yes, but we should do it in another new patch instead. Yes, this was just a hint to pair the remount/thread_pool capabilities. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
