Hi On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:35:31AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that > > "system_power_efficient_wq", but maybe it'd be better to expose a > > function as an API rather than the wq struct? > > > > Something like > > > > scheduled_delayed_work_pwr_efficient(...)? > > While there are some benefits to using dedicated functions for > specific workqueues, I don't think it brings enough benefits to > justify adding dedicated API and am unlikely to add new ones. What are selection criteria when choosing between system_wq or system_power_efficient_wq on drivers ? IOW if I would be writing a new driver which workqueue should I use and when ? I think that should be driver independent, at least for most of drivers. If system have to run in low power mode, system_power_efficient_wq should be chosen automatically by schedule_work(), otherwise when high performance is more important schedule_work() should use system_wq. Stanislaw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
