[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C16B2B1.8010101@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:52:33 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: concurrency managed workqueue, take#5
On 06/15/2010 12:49 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 00:44 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On 06/15/2010 12:35 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>> What is you definition of "concurrency" ? and explain try to explain it
>>> in terms of your patchset.
>>
>> How many workers are concurrently executing? What else? Eh... I'll
>> write up another summary tomorrow. Let's talk it there.
>
> I'd suggest If you write up another description try to not use the word
> concurrency .. That term can be used for all sorts of things, and it
> doesn't covey enough detail for anyone to know what your implementation
> is actually doing.
So is "manage" and "level of concurrency" is often used to describe
exactly this type of property. I'll try to be clear.
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