[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090104110932.6563cc6d@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:09:32 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fastboot: Asynchronous function calls to speed up
kernel boot
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:05:26 +0100
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> Surely the thread should die again boot up? On module load
> synchronisity is usually not a problem.
sadly that's not correct in practice based on the fast boot work we've
done.
>
> Personally I think it would be better to make this more generic.
> Various subsystems have thread pool implementations now,
sort of kinda. If a good one appears I'd be happy to build on top of
that, assuming it's generic enough.
> and this
> is just another variant that except for the sequence stuff
> isn't all that much different. So it would be better to have
> a generic worker thread manager that just supports these
> barriers too.
... or maybe think about seeing this system as exactly that thread
manager?
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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