[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:0.090 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site