Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: workqueue thing | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:47:22 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 09:20 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So stop arguing about irrelevancies. Nobody uses workqueues for RT or for > CPU-intensive crap. It's not what they were designed for, or used for.
RT crap maybe, but cpu intensive bits are used for sure, see the crypto/crypto_wq.c drivers/md/dm*.c.
I've seen those consume significant amounts of cpu, now I'm not going to argue that workqueues are not the best way to consume lots of cpu, but the fact is they _are_ used for that.
And since tejun's thing doesn't have wakeup parallelism covered these uses can turn into significant loads.
> If you _want_ to use them for that, that is _your_ problem. Not Tejuns.
I don't want to use workqueues at all.
> People use workqueues for other things _today_, and they have annoying > problems as they stand. It would be nice to get rid of the deadlock > issue, for example - right now the tty driver literally does crazy things, > and drops locks that it shouldn't drop due to the fact that it needs to > wait for queued work - even if the queued work it is actually waiting for > isn't the one that takes the lock!
Which in turn would imply we cannot carry fwd the current lockdep annotations, right?
Which means we'll be stuck in a situation where A flushes B and B flushes A will go undetected until we actually hit it.
Where exactly does the tty thing live in the code?
| |