On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:50 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:18 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > 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. > > > > It's translating priorities through the work queues, which doesn't seem > > to happen with the current implementation. A high priority, say > > SCHED_FIFO priority 99, task may have to wait for a nice -5 work queue > > to finish.. > > Why should that task wait? If the high priority tasks is waiting for the work to complete.. Assuming the scenario happens which your more likely to know than me.. I suppose in the flush_workqueue situation a thread could be waiting on the lower priority work queue .. > > > What about delayed_work? insert_work() will use ->normal_prio of > > > the random interrupted process, while queue_work() uses current. > > > > Actually it would be the priority of the timer softirq .. I think what > > is desired here would be saving the priority of the task calling > > delayed_work then using that.. > > But mainline calls __do_softirq() from interrupt (irq_exit). Yeah, I suppose your right in that case .. In -rt softirq's are all in threads so it would be the timer softirq thread.. Daniel - 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
