[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B063614.5030105@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:20 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, awalls@...ix.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] acpi: use queue_work_on() instead of binding workqueue
worker to cpu0
Hello,
11/20/2009 02:09 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> - kacpid_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("kacpid");
>> - bind_workqueue(kacpid_wq);
>> - kacpi_notify_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("kacpi_notify");
>> - bind_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq);
>> - kacpi_hotplug_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("kacpi_hotplug");
>> - bind_workqueue(kacpi_hotplug_wq);
>> + kacpid_wq = create_workqueue("kacpid");
>> + kacpi_notify_wq = create_workqueue("kacpi_notify");
>> + kacpi_hotplug_wq = create_workqueue("kacpi_hotplug");
>
> Well that sucks. We create an additional ((num_possible_cpus()-1)*3)
> kernel threads just because the previous code was "unorthodox"?
>
> I guess that problem goes away with concurrency-managed workqueues.
> But please let's not merge this patch without also merging
> concurrency-managed workqueues!
Yeah, it's just prepping the code for the conversion to concurrency
managed workqueues. I'll put this into linux-next for some time
without full conversion but it will never go upstream without it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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