[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: workqueue thing
    On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 09:17 +0100, Stijn Devriendt wrote:
    > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andi Kleen <> wrote:
    > > One reason I liked a more dynamic frame work for this is that it
    > > has the potential to be exposed to user space and allow automatic
    > > work partitioning there based on available cores. User space
    > > has a lot more CPU consumption than the kernel.
    > >
    > Basically, this is exactly what I was trying to solve with my
    > sched_wait_block patch. It was broken in all ways, but the ultimate
    > goal was to have concurrency managed workqueues (to nick the term)
    > in userspace and have a way out when I/O hits the workqueue.

    Don't we have the problem of wakeup concurrency here?

    Forking on blocking is only half the problem (and imho the easy half).

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-23 09:47    [W:0.018 / U:5.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site