[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1276813733.29614.120.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:28:53 -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 15:45 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 03:41 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Eh... what's the use case for that? That's just so wrong. What do
> you do after a suspend/resume cycle? Reprioritize all of them from
> suspend/resume hooks?
I tested your assertion about suspend/resume, and it doesn't seem to be
true.. I tested workqueues with nice levels, and real time priorities on
a random laptop using 2.6.31 both held their priorities across suspend
to RAM and suspend to disk .. Was this change added after 2.6.31 ?
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