On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 16:05 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 16:00 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 15:38 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > > how much of this complexity goes away if you consider the
> > > scanning/probing as a series of "work elements", and you end up with a
> > > queue of work elements that threads can pull work off one at a time (so
> > > that if one element blocks the others just continue to flow). If you
> > > then find, say, a new PCI bus you just put another work element to
> > > process it at the end of the queue, or you process it synchronously. Etc
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > All you need to scale then is the number of worker threads on the
> > > system, which should be relatively easy to size....
> > > (check every X miliseconds if there are more than X outstanding work
> > > elements, if there are, spawn one new worker thread if the total number
> > > of worker threads is less than the system wide max. Worker threads die
> > > if they have nothing to do for more than Y miliseconds)
> >
> > Instead of checking every X ms, just check at each job insertion.
>
> that would lead to a too eager amount of threads if processing the jobs
> is really really quick ...
Don't you have a "no more than X threads at once" limit ? You just
*check* at job insertion, not unconditionnaly fork.
Xav
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
