Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:17:18 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/45] Create a dynamically sized pool of threads for
 doing very slow work items [ver #41]
Message-Id: <20081121101718.aa1dfc25.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <18617.1227263040@redhat.com>
References: <20081121000913.6506d7b6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20081120144139.10667.75519.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
	<20081120144145.10667.39594.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
	<18617.1227263040@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 794
Lines: 23

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:24:00 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > umm, if they're slow, why not create a kernel thread per operation? 
> > Why add the thread pool?
> 
> Because if someone does a tar of, say, a kernel tree, that'll create one
> thread per file...

OK.

>  This provides a limiter - and makes sure there are threads
> immediately available.

Those two objectives seem incompatible.  What does a caller do when the
limit has been hit?  Do the work synchronously?

--
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/