Re: [RFC][PATCH] create workqueue threads only when needed

[Stefan Richter]

Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:15:02AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:03:49 +0100
>> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> There is one thing that make it hard to replace workqueues in such
>>> cases, there is not guarantee the function will run in user context
>>> because of this condition:
>>>
>>> if (!async_enabled || !entry || atomic_read(&entry_count) > MAX_WORK)
>>>
>>> I wanted to replace kpsmoused with an async function but I want to
>>> schedule a slow work that can't be done from irq...
>> if there is enough value in having a variant that is guaranteed to
>> always run from a thread we could add that. Likely that needs that the 
>> caller passes in a bit of memory, but that's not too big a deal.
>> If there is only 1 in the entire kernel it might not be worth it,
>> but if it's a common pattern then for sure...
>>
>> do you have a feeling on how common this is ?
>>
> 
> 
> I don't know, most of those I've looked on are not documented about the reason
> for a private workqueue. I guess most of them can use the usual kevent.

I have stuff in drivers/firewire/ done in a private workqueue and some
in the shared workqueue which I will eventually move either into
short-lived ad hoc created kthreads /or/ preferably into a thread pool
implementation --- if such a thing will have found its way into the
kernel when I have time for my project.

I need to get callers of scsi_add_device and scsi_remove_device out of
the picture.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= --=- ----=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/