Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND

[David Howells]

Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> David, this should work for fscache/slow-work the same way too.  That
> should relieve your concern, right?

Not at the moment.  What does this mean:

	 * Unbound workqueues aren't concurrency managed and should be
	 * dispatched to workers immediately.

Does this mean you don't get reentrancy guarantees with unbounded work queues?

I can't work out how you're achieving it with unbounded queues.  I presume with
CPU-bound workqueues your doing it by binding the work item to the current CPU
still...

Btw, how does this fare in an RT system, where work items bound to a CPU can't
get executed because their CPU is busy with an RT thread, even though there are
other, idle CPUs?

> Oh, and Frederic suggested that we would be better off with something based
> on tracing API and I agree, so the debugfs thing is currently dropped from
> the tree.  What do you think?

I probably disagree.  I just want to be able to cat a file and see the current
runqueue state.  I don't want to have to write and distribute a special program
to do this.  Of course, I don't know that much about the tracing API, so
cat'ing a file to get the runqueue listed nicely may be possible with that.

David
--
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/