[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1276695665.9309.17.camel@m0nster>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:41:04 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jeff@...zik.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.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: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:30 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 03:27 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >> Yes, that is. With new cmwq, a wq can't assume association with
> >> specific kthread and thus can't use wq as simple frontend to kthreads,
> >> but if somebody wants dedicated kthreads instead of shared ones in
> >> units of work, [s]he should be using kthread.
> >
> > I'm not talking about coders using workqueues when they should be using
> > kthreads .. We're talking about currently existing workqueues. Aren't
> > you converting all _current_ workqueues to your system?
>
> Yes, sure I'm but which current users are you talking about?
Any workqueue that has a thread which can be prioritized from userspace.
As long as there is a thread it can usually be given a priority from
userspace, so any _current_ workqueue which uses a single thread or
multiple threads is an example of what I'm talking about.
Daniel
--
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