[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1186429062.21381.139.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:37:42 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to
workqueue infrastructure
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:33 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> OK. I have to take my words back. I completely misunderstood why you
> are doing this and which problems you are trying to solve, my bad.
No problem man. You found some legitimate problems too so your input is
very much appreciated.
>
> Perhaps, I am also wrong on the "work_struct's could be re-ordered"
> issue. Yes, we can break the code which is currently correct, that
> was my point. But I must admit, I can't imagine the "good" code mich
> may suffer. Perhaps we can just document the change in behaviour, and
> "deprecate" such a code.
>
> The only objection (and you seem to agree) is that the "regular"
> queue_work() should not always take the callers's priority as the
> priority of work_struct.
Agreed. I think that is the right direction (assuming we can resolve
the other problems, like the double queue+queue problem you brought up).
Regards,
-Greg
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists