Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:11:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:11:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:58858 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:11:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:27:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Kai Germaschewski Cc: Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1216 Lines: 27 On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Kai Germaschewski wrote: > I'm possibly messing things up here, but doesn't it generally make more > sense to convert tq_immediate users to tasklets instead of work queues? > > tq_immediate users do not need process context, and one use I'm familiar > with is basically doing bottom half interrupt processing, e.g. in lots > of places in the ISDN code. Introducing a context switch for no obvious > gain there seems rather pointless to me? > > The same may be true for the tq_timer users as well? the main reason was that it was easier to convert everything (even old-BH style code) that did deferred processing to workqueues than to tasklets - since a fair chunk of deferred processing needs process context. Another reason is that generally it's easier to handle overload situations if the work is done in process contexts. But i agree, for things where it really matters performance-wise, introducing a tasklet should be the next step. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/