[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B2F768C.1040704@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:22:20 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, awalls@...ix.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, avi@...hat.com,
johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: workqueue thing
Hello,
On 12/21/2009 08:11 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I don't mind a good and clean design; and for sure sharing thread
> pools into one pool is really good. But if I have to choose between
> a complex "how to deal with deadlocks" algorithm, versus just
> running some more threads in the pool, I'll pick the later.
The deadlock avoidance algorithm is pretty simple. It creates a new
worker when everything is blocked. If the attempt to create a new
worker blocks, it calls in dedicated workers to ensure allocation path
is not blocked. It's not that complex.
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