[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND

Hello, David.

"David Howells" <> wrote:
> Does this mean you don't get reentrancy guarantees with unbounded work queues?

It means that unbound wq behaves like a generic worker pool. Bound wq limits concurrency to minimal level but unbound one executes works as long as resources are available. I'll continue below.

>I can't work out how you're achieving it with unbounded queues. I presume with
>CPU-bound workqueues your doing it by binding the work item to the current CPU

Unbound works are served by a dedicated gcwq whose workers are not affine to any particular CPU. As all unbound works are served by the same gcwq, non reentrancy is automatically guaranteed.

>Btw, how does this fare in an RT system, where work items bound to a CPU can't
>get executed because their CPU is busy with an RT thread, even though there are
>other, idle CPUs?

Sure, there's nothing special about unbound workers. They're just normal kthreads.

>> Oh, and Frederic suggested that we would be better off with something based
>> on tracing API and I agree, so the debugfs thing is currently dropped from
>> the tree. What do you think?
>I probably disagree. I just want to be able to cat a file and see the current
>runqueue state. I don't want to have to write and distribute a special program
>to do this. Of course, I don't know that much about the tracing API, so
>cat'ing a file to get the runqueue listed nicely may be possible with that.

I'm relatively sure we can do that. Frederic?



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-21 00:47    [W:0.047 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site