On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:18 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:12 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I personally think it is not very useful, even if it was correct.
> > > > You can create your own workqueue and change the priority of cwq->thread.
> > >
> > > This change is more dynamic than than just setting a single priority ..
> > > There was some other work going on around this, so it's not totally
> > > clear what the benefits are ..
> >
> > Yes, I see. But still I think the whole idea is broken, not just the
> > implementation.
>
> It's translating priorities through the work queues, which doesn't seem
> to happen with the current implementation. A high priority, say
> SCHED_FIFO priority 99, task may have to wait for a nice -5 work queue
> to finish..
Why should that task wait?
> > What about delayed_work? insert_work() will use ->normal_prio of
> > the random interrupted process, while queue_work() uses current.
>
> Actually it would be the priority of the timer softirq .. I think what
> is desired here would be saving the priority of the task calling
> delayed_work then using that..
But mainline calls __do_softirq() from interrupt (irq_exit).
Oleg.
-
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]
