Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765595AbXHFV2S (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:28:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758186AbXHFV2E (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:28:04 -0400 Received: from x346.tv-sign.ru ([89.108.83.215]:59271 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755570AbXHFV2B (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:28:01 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 6890 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:28:00 EDT Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 23:33:14 +0400 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Daniel Walker , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070802195049.GA361@tv-sign.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1329 Lines: 38 Gregory, we seem to more or less agree with each other, but still... On 08/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 08/01, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 02:22 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > No, > > > > You sure are a confident one ;) > > Yeah, this is a rare case when I am very sure I am right ;) > > I strongly believe you guys take a _completely_ wrong approach. > queue_work() should _not_ take the priority of the caller into > account, this is bogus. 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. 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. Oleg. - 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/