[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BFEA434.6080405@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:56:20 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: Add an API to create a singlethread workqueue
attached to the current task's cgroup
Hello,
On 05/27/2010 06:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Unless you're gonna convert every driver to use this
>> special kind of workqueue (and what happens when multiple tasks from
>> different cgroups share the driver?),
>
> We'll then create a workqueue per task. Each workqueue will have the
> right cgroup. But we are not trying to selve the problem for
> every driver.
Ah... I see. You're gonna use multiple workqueues. Once concern that
I have is that this is abuse of workqueue interface to certain level
and depends on the implementation detail of workqueue rather than its
intended usage model. stop_machine() was a similar case and in the
end it was better served by a different mechanism built on kthread
directly (cpu_stop). Wouldn't it be cleaner to use kthread directly
for your case too? You're basically trying to use workqueue as a
frontend to kthread, so...
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists