[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100619091518.GG18946@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:15:18 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
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
> Well, in general, queueing to execution latency should be fairly low
> especially if it's put at the front of the queue but well it's nothing
> with any kind of guarantee.
This is not a hard real time situation with a hard deadline,
just "ASAP"
> I'm currently writing a kthread wrapper which basically provides
> similar interface to wq but guarantees binding to a specific thread
> which can be RT of course. If single threadedness is acceptable, I
> think this would render better behavior. What do you think?
I think I would prefer simply high priority, but normal work item.
Otherwise we have the thread hanging around all the time
and on a large system it's still only a single one, so
it'll never scale.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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