Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754017AbZLWImp (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:42:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751567AbZLWImo (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:42:44 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:58303 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751497AbZLWImn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:42:43 -0500 Subject: Re: workqueue thing From: Peter Zijlstra To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Tejun Heo , awalls@radix.net, 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, avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, andi@firstfloor.org In-Reply-To: <4B31B508.5040903@garzik.org> References: <1261141088-2014-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1261143924.20899.169.camel@laptop> <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> <4B31B508.5040903@garzik.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:41:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1261557674.4937.117.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 882 Lines: 18 On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 01:13 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 12/23/2009 01:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > One key thing i havent seen in this discussion are actual measurements. I > > think a lot could be decided by simply testing this patch-set, by looking at > > the hard numbers: how much faster (or slower) did a particular key workload > > get before/after these patches. > > We are dealing with situations where drivers are using workqueues to > provide a sleep-able context, and trying to solve problems related to that. So why are threaded interrupts not considered? Isn't the typical atomic context of drivers the IRQ handler? -- 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/