Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:11:34 +0100 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: 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.
| |