Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755169Ab0FSIiI (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:38:08 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:50556 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754872Ab0FSIiE (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:38:04 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: Andy Walls Cc: Daniel Walker , Tejun Heo , mingo@elte.hu, 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 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> <1276776066.2461.15.camel@localhost> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:38:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1276776066.2461.15.camel@localhost> (Andy Walls's message of "Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:01:06 -0400") Message-ID: <87vd9fo1sk.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1238 Lines: 35 Andy Walls writes: > > I'm going to agree with Tejun, that tweaking worker thread priorities > seems like an odd thing, since they are meant to handle deferable > actions - things that can be put off until later. > If one needs to support Real Time deadlines on deferable actions, > wouldn't using dedicated kernel threads be more deterministic? > Would the user ever up the priority for a workqueue other than a > single-threaded workqueue? One exceptional case here are things like high priority error handling which is rare. For example you get an MCE that tells you some of your memory got corrupted and you should handle it ASAP. Better give it high priority then. But it's still a rare event so you don't want dedicated threads hanging around for it all time (that's what we currently have and it causes all sorts of problems) So yes I think having a priority mechanism for work items is useful. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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/