Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 06/19/2010 11:08 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to just put on front. The individual
> items shouldn't take that long, right?
> 
> (in fact I have an older patch for work queues which implemented
> that) 

Well, in general, queueing to execution latency should be fairly low
especially if it's put at the front of the queue but well it's nothing
with any kind of guarantee.

>> If there are multiple of such use cases, it would make sense to create
>> a prioritized worker pools along with prioritized per-cpu queues but
>> if there are only a few of them, I think it makes more sense to use
>> dedicated threads for them.  Do those threads need to be per-cpu?
> 
> Not strictly, although it might be useful on a error flood when
> a whole DIMM goes bad.

I'm currently writing a kthread wrapper which basically provides
similar interface to wq but guarantees binding to a specific thread
which can be RT of course.  If single threadedness is acceptable, I
think this would render better behavior.  What do you think?

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/