lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:27:27 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > So if it's generic it ought to be implemented in a generic way - not a
> > > > "dont use from any codepath that has a lock held that might
> > > > occasionally also be held in a keventd worklet". (which is a totally
> > > > unmaintainable proposition and which would just cause repeat bugs
> > > > again and again.)
> > >
> > > That's different. The core fault here lies in the keventd workqueue
> > > handling code. If we're flushing work A then we shouldn't go and
> > > block behind unrelated work B.
> >
> > the blocking is inherent in the concept of "a queue of worklets
> > handled by a single thread".
> >
> > If a worklet is blocked then all other work performed by that thread
> > is blocked as well. So by waiting on a piece of work in the queue, we
> > wait for all prior work queued up there as well.
> >
> > The only way to decouple that and to make them independent (and hence
> > independently flushable) is to create more parallel flows of
> > execution: i.e. by creating another thread (another workqueue).
> >
>
> Nope. As I said, the caller of flush_work() can detach the work item
> and run it directly.

that would change the concept of execution but indeed it would be
interesting to try. It's outside the scope of late -rcs i guess, but
worthwile nevertheless.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-26 22:49    [W:0.136 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site