Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760825Ab0FQW3E (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:29:04 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:20696 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760235Ab0FQW3A (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:29:00 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6016"; a="44771670" Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue From: Daniel Walker To: Tejun Heo Cc: 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 In-Reply-To: <4C18D574.1040903@kernel.org> 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:28:53 -0700 Message-ID: <1276813733.29614.120.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1089 Lines: 24 On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:45 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 06/16/2010 03:41 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: > > Any workqueue that has a thread which can be prioritized from userspace. > > As long as there is a thread it can usually be given a priority from > > userspace, so any _current_ workqueue which uses a single thread or > > multiple threads is an example of what I'm talking about. > > Eh... what's the use case for that? That's just so wrong. What do > you do after a suspend/resume cycle? Reprioritize all of them from > suspend/resume hooks? I tested your assertion about suspend/resume, and it doesn't seem to be true.. I tested workqueues with nice levels, and real time priorities on a random laptop using 2.6.31 both held their priorities across suspend to RAM and suspend to disk .. Was this change added after 2.6.31 ? Daniel -- 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/