On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:12 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > And I personally think it is not very useful, even if it was correct.
> > You can create your own workqueue and change the priority of cwq->thread.
>
> This change is more dynamic than than just setting a single priority ..
> There was some other work going on around this, so it's not totally
> clear what the benefits are ..
Yes, I see. But still I think the whole idea is broken, not just the
implementation.
What about delayed_work? insert_work() will use ->normal_prio of
the random interrupted process, while queue_work() uses current.
What if a niced thread queues the work? This work may have no chance
to run if workqueue is actively used.
And I don't understand why rt_mutex_setprio() is called just before
calling work->func(). This means that a high-priority work could
be delayed by the low-priority ->current_work.
> > > > @@ -168,7 +171,7 @@ int fastcall queue_work(struct workqueue
> > > > int ret = 0, cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> > > >
> > > > if (!test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, work_data_bits(work))) {
> > > > - BUG_ON(!list_empty(&work->entry));
> > > > + BUG_ON(!plist_node_empty(&work->entry));
> > > > __queue_work(wq_per_cpu(wq, cpu), work);
> > > > ret = 1;
> >
> > Side note, looks like you use some strange kernel. This raw_smp_processor_id()
> > above is wrong.
>
> As the topic suggests , it's a Real Time kernel .. I can give you a link
> where to download it if you want.
Ok, thanks, I'll take a look. Still, we can't use raw_smp_processor_id()
unless we disabled cpu-hotplug.
Oleg.
-
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
