[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090129045848.GB5231@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:58:48 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH] create workqueue threads only when needed
On 01/29, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> I was about to retry the same approach but through async functions (kernel/async.c)
> which would have solved the possible deadlock you described and would have made
> the synchronizations easier.
>
> But actually this is only a half solution:
>
> Pointless workqueues stay pointless, even if they don't appear before they run once.
> And moreover this is hiding the real problem: parts of the kernel use dedicated workqueues
> while kevent is sufficient most of the time.
>
> And if there are problems with using the workqueues, because of deadlocks or slow
> works, async functions are a good solution.
Completely agreed.
And. Even if some subsystem really needs its own workqueue, probably it
can use the single-threaded one, but we have a lot of multithreaded wqs.
Oleg.
--
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