lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: workqueue thing
On 12/21/2009 10:17, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> in addition, threads are cheap. Linux has no technical problem with
>> running 100's of kernel threads (if not 1000s); they cost basically a
>> task struct and a stack (2 pages) each and that's about it. making an
>> elaborate-and-thus-fragile design to save a few kernel threads is
>> likely a bad design direction...
>
> One would hope not, since that is by no means outside of what you see on
> boxes today... Thousands. The fact that they are cheap, is not an
> argument against doing it right. Conceptually, I think the concurrency
> managed work queue pool is a much cleaner (and efficient) design.
>

I don't mind a good and clean design; and for sure sharing thread pools into one pool
is really good.
But if I have to choose between a complex "how to deal with deadlocks" algorithm, versus just
running some more threads in the pool, I'll pick the later.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-21 12:13    [W:1.190 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site