Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932697AbXHFTke (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:40:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932756AbXHFTja (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:39:30 -0400 Received: from victor.provo.novell.com ([137.65.250.26]:39361 "EHLO victor.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761828AbXHFTj3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:39:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure From: Gregory Haskins To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Daniel Walker , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070806193314.GB101@tv-sign.ru> References: <1185992994.2636.142.camel@imap.mvista.com> <20070801201802.GA225@tv-sign.ru> <1186000468.2636.168.camel@imap.mvista.com> <20070801205053.GA263@tv-sign.ru> <1186002783.9513.228.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net> <20070801213422.GA280@tv-sign.ru> <1186005598.9513.261.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net> <20070801222201.GA316@tv-sign.ru> <1186012439.9513.321.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net> <20070802195049.GA361@tv-sign.ru> <20070806193314.GB101@tv-sign.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:37:42 -0400 Message-Id: <1186429062.21381.139.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1177 Lines: 30 On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:33 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > OK. I have to take my words back. I completely misunderstood why you > are doing this and which problems you are trying to solve, my bad. No problem man. You found some legitimate problems too so your input is very much appreciated. > > Perhaps, I am also wrong on the "work_struct's could be re-ordered" > issue. Yes, we can break the code which is currently correct, that > was my point. But I must admit, I can't imagine the "good" code mich > may suffer. Perhaps we can just document the change in behaviour, and > "deprecate" such a code. > > The only objection (and you seem to agree) is that the "regular" > queue_work() should not always take the callers's priority as the > priority of work_struct. Agreed. I think that is the right direction (assuming we can resolve the other problems, like the double queue+queue problem you brought up). Regards, -Greg - 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/