Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:12:03 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 17/21] workqueue: simple reimplementation of SINGLE_THREAD workqueue |
| |
Hello, Linus.
11/18/2009 12:05 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Do you think that usage is wide-spread? Implementing strict ordering >> shouldn't be too difficult but I can't help but feeling that such >> assumption is abuse of implementation detail. > > I think it would be good if it were more than an implementation detail, > and was something documented and known. > > The less random and timing-dependent our interfaces are, the better off we > are. Guaranteeing that a single-threaded workqueue is done in order seems > to me to be a GoodThing(tm), regardless of whether much code depends on > it. > > Of course, if there is some fundamental reason why it wouldn't be the > case, that's another thing. But if you think uit should be easy, and since > there _are_ users, then it shouldn't be seen as an "implementation > detail". It's a feature.
I might have been too early with the 'easy' part but I definitely can give it a shot. What do you think about the scheduler notifier implementation? It seems we'll end up with three callbacks. It can either be three hlist_heads in the struct_task linking each ops or single hilst_head links ops tables (like the current preempt notifiers). Which one should I go with?
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |