Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:12:56 +0200 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue |
| |
Hello,
On 06/19/2010 11:08 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > I think it's reasonable to just put on front. The individual > items shouldn't take that long, right? > > (in fact I have an older patch for work queues which implemented > that)
Well, in general, queueing to execution latency should be fairly low especially if it's put at the front of the queue but well it's nothing with any kind of guarantee.
>> If there are multiple of such use cases, it would make sense to create >> a prioritized worker pools along with prioritized per-cpu queues but >> if there are only a few of them, I think it makes more sense to use >> dedicated threads for them. Do those threads need to be per-cpu? > > Not strictly, although it might be useful on a error flood when > a whole DIMM goes bad.
I'm currently writing a kthread wrapper which basically provides similar interface to wq but guarantees binding to a specific thread which can be RT of course. If single threadedness is acceptable, I think this would render better behavior. What do you think?
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |