* Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > as far as the prioritization of function calls goes, _that_ makes > > sense, but it should not be a separate API but should be done to our > > normal workqueue APIs. That not only extends the effects of > > priorities to all current workqueue using kernel subsystems, but > > also keeps the API more unified. We really dont want to have too > > many -rt specific APIs. > > I agree with you that having some kind of priority and cpu-binding > specifiers for work-queues would be very cool indeed. However, note > that I didn't actually introduce a new API(*), per se. I simply > worked under the existing smp_call_function[_single]() API. > > Using the smp_call_functions is critical design factor, however. I > really want clients of this function to seamlessly transition to > threaded mode. [...] well, 'clients' of this function are low-level architectural bits like the scheduler and the TLB flush code which stays atomic nevertheless. smp_call_function() is _not_ a true generic framework and to 'thread' it is wrong and misplaced and leads to the kind of over-complification that your patch shows. Please work based on the workqueue APIs. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
