[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1216440697.3978.142.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:11:37 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] fastboot: Create a "asynchronous" initlevel
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 20:44 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:22:20 -0700
> Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 15:16 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > +static void __init do_initcalls(void)
> > > +{
> > > + initcall_t *call;
> > > + static DECLARE_WORK(async_work, do_async_initcalls);
> > > + int phase = 0; /* 0 = levels 0 - 6, 1 = level 6a, 2 = after
> > > level 6a */
> > > +
> > > + async_init_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("kasyncinit");
> > > +
> >
> > Could you spawning one thread per cpu, and queuing the work evenly?
>
> not without loosing the ordering.....
>
I don't think there is any expectation for any given initcall to have a
special ordering .. There is an ordering expectation for say initcall 6
runs before 6a , but not within the initcall ..
Daniel
--
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