Re: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternativeimplementation
From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Mon Jan 18 2010 - 01:01:52 EST
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:57:44 +0900
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Now that cmwq can handle high concurrency, there's no reason to
> implement separate thread pool for async. Introduce alternative
> implementation based on workqueue.
I'm sorry but I'm really not happy with this conversion;
it looses the very nice property of being able to execute and
synchronize between places at the end just before device registration.
I don't mind the implementation sharing thread pool with your stuff,
but I really really want to keep the cookie and synchronization
mechanism. There's a bunch of users of that pending and doing things
sequential entirely just is not going to cut it.
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
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/