Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:12:53 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure |
| |
On 08/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 20:52 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > static void insert_work(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq, > > struct work_struct *work, int tail) > > { > > + int prio = current->normal_prio; > > + > > set_wq_data(work, cwq); > > /* > > * Ensure that we get the right work->data if we see the > > * result of list_add() below, see try_to_grab_pending(). > > */ > > smp_wmb(); > > - if (tail) > > - list_add_tail(&work->entry, &cwq->worklist); > > - else > > - list_add(&work->entry, &cwq->worklist); > > + plist_node_init(&work->entry, prio); > > + plist_add(&work->entry, &cwq->worklist);
Sorry, this patch is completely wrong. It immediately breaks flush_workqueue/cancel_workqueue functions.
And I personally think it is not very useful, even if it was correct. You can create your own workqueue and change the priority of cwq->thread.
> > @@ -168,7 +171,7 @@ int fastcall queue_work(struct workqueue > > int ret = 0, cpu = raw_smp_processor_id(); > > > > if (!test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, work_data_bits(work))) { > > - BUG_ON(!list_empty(&work->entry)); > > + BUG_ON(!plist_node_empty(&work->entry)); > > __queue_work(wq_per_cpu(wq, cpu), work); > > ret = 1;
Side note, looks like you use some strange kernel. This raw_smp_processor_id() above is wrong.
Oleg.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |