[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0910010953010.6996@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] scheduler: implement workqueue scheduler class
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Implement workqueue scheduler class. Workqueue sched_class inherits
> fair sched_class and behaves exactly the same as sched_class except
> that it has two callback functions which get called when a task is put
> to sleep and wakes up and doesn't allow switching to different
> scheduler class.
So this looks odd to me.
I agree completely with the callback functions, but what I don't agree
with is that this is somehow workqueue-related. I bet that others could
use this, and in fact, I suspect that it should not be tied to the
scheduler class at all, but to the _thread_.
Just as an example, I could imagine that we would do lock_kernel()
releasing the kernel lock on scheduling (and re-taking it on wakeup) as a
callback. Or async IO handling - both done independently of any
"workqueue" logic.
So tying this to the scheduler class seems a bit odd. But maybe I'm
missing something?
Linus
--
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