[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C1B29BF.7080404@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:09:35 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
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: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue
Hello,
On 06/18/2010 09:31 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:16:15 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Nope. Consider a simple byte-at-a-time rx handler. The ISR grabs the
> byte, stashes it away, bangs on the hardware a bit then signals
> userspace to promptly start processing that byte. Very simple,
> legitimate and a valid thing to do.
>
> Also the "interrupt" code might be running from a timer handler. Or it
> might just be in process context, buried in a forest of locks and wants
> to punt further processing into a separate process.
Sure, there'll be cases which would be better served that way but
things which fit neither the traditional interrupt handler nor the
threaded one are in very small minority. I think having niche
solutions for those niche problems would be far better than trying to
engineer generic async mechanism to serve all of them.
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