[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201203152107.57501.chunkeey@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:57 +0100
From: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware_class: Move request_firmware_nowait() to workqueues
On Thursday, March 15, 2012 08:50:15 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Oddly enough a work_struct was already part of the firmware_work
> structure but nobody was using it. Instead of creating a new
> kthread for each request_firmware_nowait() just schedule the work
> on the system workqueue. This should avoid some overhead in
> forking new threads when they're not strictly necessary if
> workqueues are available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> ---
>
> I saw this while looking at this problem we're having.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that stall all other
global workqueue tasks for up to 60 seconds [in worst case]?
But I think we can get rid of the firmware_work work struct...
Regards,
Chr
--
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