[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200911261523.40952.peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:23:40 +0200
From: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ia.com>
To: ext Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>
Cc: ext Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
ext Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: workqueues tree build failure
On Thursday 26 November 2009 14:49:56 ext Andy Walls wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> I would suspect using a single-threaded workqueue is better than a
> wake_up() of another thread. IIRC, after queuing work, the workqueue's
> single thread may run almost immediately on the same processor. With
> waking up sleeping threads, I've run into scheduler delays around 10 ms
> on a dual core x86_64 desktop system.
Hello Andy,
I have sent the patch which changes from rt to singlethread, I hope it fixes the
breakage in linux-next.
In short testing, when there is virtually no load on the system I can not see
any difference, which might change later.
But I'll keep in mind that probably I'm not going to better off with the waking
up of a sleeping thread.
>
> Regards,
> Andy
Thanks,
Péter
--
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