On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:26 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > No, the "tail" option has nothing to do with prioritize, we can't remove > it. Please look at the code. So you insert a work struct that executes last which wakes the flushing thread? > Also, flush_workqueue() must not be delayed by the new incoming work_struct's, > the change like this breaks this assumption. True .. Daniel - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- Prev by Date: RE: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1 -- It does not matter who's code gets merged!
- Next by Date: Re: [REGRESSION] tg3 dead after s2ram
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
- Index(es):
 |