Re: [PATCH 17/21] workqueue: simple reimplementation of SINGLE_THREADworkqueue

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Linus.

11/18/2009 12:05 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Do you think that usage is wide-spread?  Implementing strict ordering
>> shouldn't be too difficult but I can't help but feeling that such
>> assumption is abuse of implementation detail.
> 
> I think it would be good if it were more than an implementation detail, 
> and was something documented and known.
> 
> The less random and timing-dependent our interfaces are, the better off we 
> are. Guaranteeing that a single-threaded workqueue is done in order seems 
> to me to be a GoodThing(tm), regardless of whether much code depends on 
> it.
> 
> Of course, if there is some fundamental reason why it wouldn't be the 
> case, that's another thing. But if you think uit should be easy, and since 
> there _are_ users, then it shouldn't be seen as an "implementation 
> detail". It's a feature.

I might have been too early with the 'easy' part but I definitely can
give it a shot.  What do you think about the scheduler notifier
implementation?  It seems we'll end up with three callbacks.  It can
either be three hlist_heads in the struct_task linking each ops or
single hilst_head links ops tables (like the current preempt
notifiers).  Which one should I go with?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/