Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: workqueue thing | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:06:41 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 08:50 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > 3) gets fragile at memory-pressure/reclaim > > Shared dynamic pool is going to be affected by memory pressure no > matter how you implement it. cmwq tries to maintain stable level of > workers and has forward progress guarantee. If you're gonna do shared > pool, it can't get much better.
And here I'm questioning the very need for shared stuff, I don't see any. That is, I'm not seeing it being worth the hassle.
| |