[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C4DB247.9060709@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:05:27 +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 UPDATED 1/3] vhost: replace vhost_workqueue with per-vhost
kthread
Hello,
On 07/26/2010 05:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Hmmm... I'm not quite sure whether it's an optimization. I thought
>> the patch was due to feeling uncomfortable about using barriers?
>
> Oh yes. But getting rid of barriers is what motivated me originally.
Yeah, getting rid of barriers is always good. :-)
> Is there a git tree with kthread_worker applied?
> I might do this just for fun ...
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-next
For the original implementaiton, please take a look at commit
b56c0d8937e665a27d90517ee7a746d0aa05af46.
* Can you please keep the outer goto repeat loop? I just don't like
outermost for (;;).
* Placing try_to_freeze() could be a bit annoying. It shouldn't be
executed when there's a work to flush.
* I think A - B <= 0 test would be more familiar. At least
time_before/after() are implemented that way.
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