Re: workqueue thing

[Arjan van de Ven]

On 12/21/2009 10:17, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > in addition, threads are cheap. Linux has no technical problem with
> > running 100's of kernel threads (if not 1000s); they cost basically a
> > task struct and a stack (2 pages) each and that's about it.  making an
> > elaborate-and-thus-fragile design to save a few kernel threads is
> > likely a bad design direction...
>
> One would hope not, since that is by no means outside of what you see on
> boxes today... Thousands. The fact that they are cheap, is not an
> argument against doing it right. Conceptually, I think the concurrency
> managed work queue pool is a much cleaner (and efficient) design.

I don't mind a good and clean design; and for sure sharing thread pools into one pool
is really good.
But if I have to choose between a complex "how to deal with deadlocks" algorithm, versus just
running some more threads in the pool, I'll pick the later.

--
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/