Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue

[Tejun Heo]

On 06/16/2010 03:27 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> Yes, that is.  With new cmwq, a wq can't assume association with
>> specific kthread and thus can't use wq as simple frontend to kthreads,
>> but if somebody wants dedicated kthreads instead of shared ones in
>> units of work, [s]he should be using kthread.
> 
> I'm not talking about coders using workqueues when they should be using
> kthreads .. We're talking about currently existing workqueues. Aren't
> you converting all _current_ workqueues to your system?

Yes, sure I'm but which current users are you talking about?

>> wq does provide nicer tools for synchronization but in general I don't
>> think using kthread is too hard and there aren't too many cases
>> anyway.  If there are many users && kthread is difficult to use
>> directly, we can definitely write up a wrapping layer tho.  But I
>> really think using wq as wrapper around kthreads and manipulating
>> worker thread directly is an abusement.
> 
> It would be a hack the user would have to patch onto there kernel in
> order to get back functionality your taking away.
> 
> I think from your perspective workqueue threads are all used for
> "concurrency management" only, but I don't think that's true. Some will
> be user for prioritization (I'm talking about _current_ workqueues).
> 
> Could you address or ponder how the work items could be prioritized
> under your system?

Again, please give me some examples.

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/