Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:40:03 +0200 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue |
| |
On 06/19/2010 10:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net> writes: >> >> I'm going to agree with Tejun, that tweaking worker thread priorities >> seems like an odd thing, since they are meant to handle deferable >> actions - things that can be put off until later. > >> If one needs to support Real Time deadlines on deferable actions, >> wouldn't using dedicated kernel threads be more deterministic? >> Would the user ever up the priority for a workqueue other than a >> single-threaded workqueue? > > One exceptional case here are things like high priority error handling > which is rare. > > For example you get an MCE that tells you some of your > memory got corrupted and you should handle it ASAP. > Better give it high priority then. > > But it's still a rare event so you don't want dedicated > threads hanging around for it all time > (that's what we currently have and it causes all sorts > of problems) > > So yes I think having a priority mechanism for work items > is useful.
Wouldn't that be better served by cpu_stop?
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |