On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 21:48 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yes, it addresses different aspect of the concurrency problem. Might > > be more suitable for ATA workqueues but definitely more costly to > > convert to. Argh... > ^ compared to Jens's lazy workqueue. So there are two issues here. One is ATAs need for execution in user context that won't block other execution ... I really think that if there's an existing pattern for this in the kernel, we should use it rather than inventing our own. The other is the question of whether the workqueue concept itself is flawed. This business of some jobs blocking other jobs due to execution order on the queue can be a nasty side effect and it can lead to entangled deadlocks, but for some uses, the whole concept of queued jobs following a set order is necessary. It might be appropriate to think about whether we want to convert the whole workqueue infrastructure to something like slow_work instead and possibly think about ordering on top of this. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
