Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>]

Gregory, we seem to more or less agree with each other, but still...

On 08/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/01, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 02:22 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > > No,
> > 
> > You sure are a confident one ;)
> 
> Yeah, this is a rare case when I am very sure I am right ;)
> 
> I strongly believe you guys take a _completely_ wrong approach.
> queue_work() should _not_ take the priority of the caller into
> account, this is bogus.

OK. I have to take my words back. I completely misunderstood why you
are doing this and which problems you are trying to solve, my bad.

Perhaps, I am also wrong on the "work_struct's could be re-ordered"
issue. Yes, we can break the code which is currently correct, that
was my point. But I must admit, I can't imagine the "good" code mich
may suffer. Perhaps we can just document the change in behaviour, and
"deprecate" such a code.

The only objection (and you seem to agree) is that the "regular"
queue_work() should not always take the callers's priority as the
priority of work_struct.

Oleg.

-
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/