Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:09:35 +0200 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue |
| |
Hello,
On 06/18/2010 09:31 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:16:15 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > Nope. Consider a simple byte-at-a-time rx handler. The ISR grabs the > byte, stashes it away, bangs on the hardware a bit then signals > userspace to promptly start processing that byte. Very simple, > legitimate and a valid thing to do. > > Also the "interrupt" code might be running from a timer handler. Or it > might just be in process context, buried in a forest of locks and wants > to punt further processing into a separate process.
Sure, there'll be cases which would be better served that way but things which fit neither the traditional interrupt handler nor the threaded one are in very small minority. I think having niche solutions for those niche problems would be far better than trying to engineer generic async mechanism to serve all of them.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |