[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1276695734.3640.20.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:42:14 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
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, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:39 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 03:37 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >> As multiple execution contexts are available for each wq, deadlocks
> >> around execution contexts is much harder to create. The default
> >> workqueue, system_wq, has maximum concurrency level of 256 and unless
> >> there is a use case which can result in a dependency loop involving
> >> more than 254 workers, it won't deadlock.
> >
> > I see a lot of stuff about the current limitations etc., but nothing
> > about code that actually _relies_ on the synchronisation properties of
> > the current wqs. We talked about that a long time ago, is it still
> > guaranteed that a single-threaded wq will serialise all work put onto
> > it? It needs to be, but I don't see you explicitly mentioning it.
>
> Oh yeah, if you have WQ_SINGLE_CPU + max inflight of 1, works on the
> wq are fully ordered.
Ok, great, thanks. FWIW, that's pretty much all I care about right
now :)
johannes
--
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