Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753036AbZLWIDM (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:03:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752124AbZLWIDL (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:03:11 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56352 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752106AbZLWIDK (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:03:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:01:44 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Tejun Heo Cc: Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , awalls@radix.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, andi@firstfloor.org Subject: Re: workqueue thing Message-ID: <20091223080144.GG23839@elte.hu> References: <4B2EE5A5.2030208@kernel.org> <1261387377.4314.37.camel@laptop> <4B2F7879.2080901@kernel.org> <1261405604.4314.154.camel@laptop> <4B3009DC.7020407@kernel.org> <1261480001.4937.21.camel@laptop> <4B319A20.9010305@kernel.org> <20091223060229.GA14805@elte.hu> <4B31C210.4010100@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B31C210.4010100@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1225 Lines: 28 * Tejun Heo wrote: > > We really are not forced to the space of Gedankenexperiments here. > > Sure but there's a reason why I posted the patchset without the actual > conversions. I wanted to make sure that it's not rejected on the ground of > its basic design. I thought it was acceptable after the first RFC round but > while trying to merge the scheduler part, Peter seemed mightily unhappy with > the whole thing, so this second RFC round. So, if anyone has major issues > with the basic design, please step forward *now* before I go spending more > time working on it. At least as far as i'm concerned, i'd like to see actual uses. It's a big linecount increase all things considered: 20 files changed, 2783 insertions(+), 660 deletions(-) and you say it _wont_ help performance/scalability (this aspect wasnt clear to me from previous discussions), so the (yet to be seen) complexity reduction in other code ought to be worth it. Ingo -- 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/