From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/3] rt: PI-workqueue support
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:33:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1193067211.5028.55.camel@imap.mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1193055303.27435.176.camel@twins>
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 14:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Daniel wrote this bit, but I tend to agree with him, but can't give his
> rationale. Mine is that worklets are typically asynchonous and thus its
> prio should not depend on temporal things like boosting.
>
> OTOH it would probably make sense to allow it to depend on it through
> the barrier constructs, but for that I have to hook the completions into
> the PI chain. Something that needs more thought.
Yeah, I think Peter summarized it .. Since the task isn't waiting on
work when it's inserted it didn't seem right to use a priority that may
be boosted, since the work isn't preventing completion .. I think the
only time you would want to transfer the boosted priority is when a task
gets blocked, which does happen when you flush the workqueue.
Although, If there is one area of this code that needs attention I think
it's the PI stuff, it wasn't my first priority at the time .. I also
recall Oleg find some issue with it ..
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-22 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-22 9:50 [RFC/PATCH 0/3] rt: workqueue PI support Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-22 9:50 ` [RFC/PATCH 1/3] rt: rename rt_mutex_setprio to task_setprio Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-22 9:50 ` [RFC/PATCH 2/3] rt: PI-workqueue support Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-22 12:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-22 12:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-22 15:33 ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2007-10-22 9:50 ` [RFC/PATCH 3/3] rt: PI-workqueue: fix barriers Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-22 11:48 ` [RFC/PATCH 4/3] rt: PI-workqueue: fixup the barrier prio Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-22 12:18 ` [RFC/PATCH 5/3] " Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-22 17:34 ` [RFC/PATCH 3/3] rt: PI-workqueue: fix barriers Oleg Nesterov
2007-10-22 19:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1193067211.5028.55.camel@imap.mvista.com \
--to=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome