Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:21:05 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
To: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@codeaurora.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
       mingo@elte.hu, awalls@radix.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
       cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
       johannes@sipsolutions.net, oleg@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue
Message-ID: <20100617082105.5e723fd0@schatten.dmk.lab>
In-Reply-To: <20100617072920.2b09912d@schatten.dmk.lab>
References: <1276551467-21246-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
	<4C17C598.7070303@kernel.org>
	<1276631037.6432.9.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
	<4C18BF40.40607@kernel.org>
	<1276694825.9309.12.camel@m0nster>
	<4C18D1FD.9060804@kernel.org>
	<1276695665.9309.17.camel@m0nster>
	<4C18D574.1040903@kernel.org>
	<1276697146.9309.27.camel@m0nster>
	<4C18DC69.10704@kernel.org>
	<1276698880.9309.44.camel@m0nster>
	<4C18E4B7.5040702@kernel.org>
	<1276701074.9309.60.camel@m0nster>
	<4C18F2B8.9060805@kernel.org>
	<1276705838.9309.94.camel@m0nster>
	<4C1901E9.2080907@kernel.org>
	<1276712547.9309.172.camel@m0nster>
	<4C191BE9.1060400@kernel.org>
	<4C192404.7000004@kernel.org>
	<20100617072920.2b09912d@schatten.dmk.lab>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2377
Lines: 51

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:29:20 +0200
Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:20:36 +0200
> Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 06/16/2010 08:46 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > * I'm very sorry I'm breaking your hacky workaround but seriously
> > >   that's another problem to solve.  Let's talk about the problem
> > >   itself instead of your hacky workaround.  (I think for most cases
> > >   not using workqueue in RT path would be the right thing to do.)
> > 
> > For example, for the actual case of amba-pl022.c you mentioned, where
> > interrupt handler sometimes offloads to workqueue, convert
> > amba-pl022.c to use threaded interrupt handler.  That's why it's
> > there.
> > 
> > If you actually _solve_ the problem like this, other users wouldn't
> > experience the problem at all once the update reaches them and you
> > won't have to worry about your workaround breaking with the next
> > kernel update or unexpected suspend/resume and we won't be having this
> > discussion about adjusting workqueue priorities from userland.
> > 
> > There are many wrong things about working around RT latency problems
> > by setting workqueue priorities from userland.  Please think about why
> > the driver would have a separate workqueue for itself in the first
> > place.  It was to work around the limitation of workqueue facility and
> > you're arguing that, because that work around allows yet another very
> > fragile workaround, the property which made the original work around
> > necessary in the first place needs to stay.  That sounds really
> > perverse to me.
> > 
> 
> For what its worth, IMO the right thing to do would probably be to
> propagate the priority through the subsystem into the driver. 

I was thinking about input devices here... anyway, my point is, that
the user of the workqueue-interface should pass the priority-context to
the workqueue subsystem... 

If a userspace needs a driver to have a specific priority... can it
inform the system about it (thinking sysfs here..)? that would prevent
userspace having "to kick" the kernel if smth get's stuck....

Cheers,
Flo
--
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/