[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1403926333.5113.12.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 05:32:13 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Austin Schuh <austin@...oton-tech.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 18:18 -0700, Austin Schuh wrote:
> It would be more context switches, but I wonder if we could kick the
> workqueue logic completely out of the scheduler into a thread. Have
> the scheduler increment/decrement an atomic pool counter, and wake up
> the monitoring thread to spawn new threads when needed? That would
> get rid of the recursive pool lock problem, and should reduce
> scheduler latency if we would need to spawn a new thread.
I was wondering the same thing, and not only for workqueue, but also the
plug pulling. It's kind of a wart to have that stuff sitting in the
hear of the scheduler in the first place, would be nice if it just went
away. When a task can't help itself, you _could_ wake a proxy do that
for you. Trouble is, I can imagine that being a heck of a lot of
context switches with some loads.. and who's gonna help the helper when
he blocks while trying to help?
-Mike
--
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