Hello, Jens. Jens Axboe wrote: >> It would be nice if merging of this series and the lazy work can be >> held a bit but there's no harm in merging either. If the concurrency >> managed workqueue turns out to be a good idea, we can replace it then. > > It can wait, what you describe above sounds really cool and would > hopefully allow us to get rid of all workqueues (provided it scales well > and doesn't fall down on cache line contention with many different > instances pounding on it). Almost all operations are per-cpu so cache lines shouldn't bounce too much. The only part I worry about is the part which checks whether a work is currently executing on the current cpu which currently is implemeted as a hash table. The hash table is only 16 pointers long and will be mostly empty so hopefully it doesn't add any significant overhead. > Care to post it? I know you don't think it's perfect yet, but it would > make a lot more sense to throw effort into this rather than waste time > on partial solutions. I have this printed out code with full of red markings from proof reading and flush implementation is mostly broken. Please give me a couple of days. I'll post a rough unsplit version which at least compiles with the planned changes applied by the end of the week. :-) Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
