[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B31B508.5040903@garzik.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:13:28 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, awalls@...ix.net,
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, avi@...hat.com, johannes@...solutions.net,
andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: workqueue thing
On 12/23/2009 01:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> One key thing i havent seen in this discussion are actual measurements. I
> think a lot could be decided by simply testing this patch-set, by looking at
> the hard numbers: how much faster (or slower) did a particular key workload
> get before/after these patches.
We are dealing with situations where drivers are using workqueues to
provide a sleep-able context, and trying to solve problems related to that.
"faster or slower?" is not very relevant for such cases.
Jeff
--
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