* Gregory Haskins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > as far as the prioritization of function calls goes, _that_ makes
> > sense, but it should not be a separate API but should be done to our
> > normal workqueue APIs. That not only extends the effects of
> > priorities to all current workqueue using kernel subsystems, but
> > also keeps the API more unified. We really dont want to have too
> > many -rt specific APIs.
>
> I agree with you that having some kind of priority and cpu-binding
> specifiers for work-queues would be very cool indeed. However, note
> that I didn't actually introduce a new API(*), per se. I simply
> worked under the existing smp_call_function[_single]() API.
>
> Using the smp_call_functions is critical design factor, however. I
> really want clients of this function to seamlessly transition to
> threaded mode. [...]
well, 'clients' of this function are low-level architectural bits like
the scheduler and the TLB flush code which stays atomic nevertheless.
smp_call_function() is _not_ a true generic framework and to 'thread' it
is wrong and misplaced and leads to the kind of over-complification that
your patch shows. Please work based on the workqueue APIs.
Ingo
-
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]
