Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kthread: Don't depend on work queues | Date | Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:22:40 -0600 |
| |
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> argh. Your description freely confuddles the terms "kernel thread" and > "kthread". Can we not do that? Henceforth the term "kernel thread" refers > to something which was started with kernel_thread() and "kthread" refers to > something which was created by kthread_create(), OK?
Yes. Will fix.
> Your patch gets midly tangled up with Oleg's recent > > reduce-reparent_to_init.patch > make-kernel-threads-invisible-to-sbin-init.patch > reparent-kernel-threads-to-swapper.patch > > but they seemed fairly unpopular anyway so I'll drop 'em.
Ok. I kind of liked the first one but that is a minor cleanup.
> Your wait_event() will contribute to load average, I expect. We get mail. > I converted it to wait_event_interruptible().
Ok. That is more polite.
> I guess using PF_NOFREEZE rather than try_to_freeze() is OK, but one > wonders what thinking led to that?
That is what we are currently doing for the work queues, and I was lazy. For people who care they can fix it.
> Often when we have a singleton thread like this it is neater to use > wake_up_process() directly on it, rather than creating a rather pointless > waitqueue_head for it. I started looking into that but it would have taken > more than 30 seconds.
Sure I took a look and it isn't too hard. Updated patch in a minute...
I have left the locking the way it is despite the reasonable chance that Oleg points I can only acquire the lock when deleting the list entry. I'm to lazy to think through the SMP races to make certain that is safe.
Eric
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |