Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:01:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:01:44 -0500 Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.26]:3987 "EHLO mwinf0503.wanadoo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:01:43 -0500 From: Duncan Sands To: J S , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Tasklets vs. Task Queues for Deferred Processing Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:12:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <1048893277.4058.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1048893277.4058.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303290912.54062.baldrick@wanadoo.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 988 Lines: 19 On Saturday 29 March 2003 00:14, J S wrote: > I'm trying to defer some processing to a later point. I'm in a softirq, > so in_interrupt() returns true. I need to schedule some work for later, > in process context. I have read in the O'Reilly linux device drivers > book that tasklets always run in interrupt time. Also, I guess the only > task_queue that is in process context is the scheduler task queue. I've > seen in a few places that task queues are on their way out and tasklets > are being used instead. Is this completely true? Should I consider > task queues as a deprecated method of deferred processing?` What other > deferred processing methods can I use that will run in process context? In 2.5, use a workqueue. Duncan. - 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/