lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 15 Jun 2008 14:22:52 +0400
FromOleg Nesterov <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] workqueues: implement flush_work()
On 06/14, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 05:59:51PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/14, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> ...
> > > Another question is if schedule_on_each_cpu() is really such a good
> > > example here: it seems these "xxx && yyy" examples could be faster,
> > > but I've lost track of this earlier thread.
> > 
> > schedule_on_each_cpu() can't use cancel_ + ->func(), the code should
> > be executed on the remote CPU.
> 
> ???
> Actually I meant this "xxx && yyy" schedule_on_each_cpu():
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121329259203187&w=2

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes, "xxx && yyy" needs only 1 wakeup, so it needs less CPU. But it also
more complex, and it is not easy to generalize this.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-15 12:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2008