Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
cc: jeff@garzik.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
       cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] scheduler: implement workqueue scheduler class
In-Reply-To: <1254384558-1018-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0910010953010.6996@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1254384558-1018-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1254384558-1018-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1195
Lines: 31


On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Implement workqueue scheduler class.  Workqueue sched_class inherits
> fair sched_class and behaves exactly the same as sched_class except
> that it has two callback functions which get called when a task is put
> to sleep and wakes up and doesn't allow switching to different
> scheduler class.

So this looks odd to me.

I agree completely with the callback functions, but what I don't agree 
with is that this is somehow workqueue-related. I bet that others could 
use this, and in fact, I suspect that it should not be tied to the 
scheduler class at all, but to the _thread_.

Just as an example, I could imagine that we would do lock_kernel() 
releasing the kernel lock on scheduling (and re-taking it on wakeup) as a 
callback. Or async IO handling - both done independently of any 
"workqueue" logic.

So tying this to the scheduler class seems a bit odd. But maybe I'm 
missing something?

		Linus
--
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/