Messages in this thread | | | From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND | Date | Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:01:42 +0100 |
| |
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> David, this should work for fscache/slow-work the same way too. That > should relieve your concern, right?
Not at the moment. What does this mean:
* Unbound workqueues aren't concurrency managed and should be * dispatched to workers immediately.
Does this mean you don't get reentrancy guarantees with unbounded work queues?
I can't work out how you're achieving it with unbounded queues. I presume with CPU-bound workqueues your doing it by binding the work item to the current CPU still...
Btw, how does this fare in an RT system, where work items bound to a CPU can't get executed because their CPU is busy with an RT thread, even though there are other, idle CPUs?
> Oh, and Frederic suggested that we would be better off with something based > on tracing API and I agree, so the debugfs thing is currently dropped from > the tree. What do you think?
I probably disagree. I just want to be able to cat a file and see the current runqueue state. I don't want to have to write and distribute a special program to do this. Of course, I don't know that much about the tracing API, so cat'ing a file to get the runqueue listed nicely may be possible with that.
David
| |