Heya Pradeep...
may i ask why so?
IMHO, because by avoiding serialization, you could maximize the work you
can do at a time. This is especially true for SMP...
> Which one now will schedule?If i want serialisation in the sense that,
> the handler which got the CPU first should always finish first i guess
> i ll need a semaphore.
To give you a picture, even if two handler submitted to different CPU
with the same expiration time, there is a chance one would run first
then followed by the other. This is derived from the fact that Linux
kernel doesn't guarantee real time timer execution, so workqueue handler
could be deferred several miliseconds later than the actual deadline.
Yup ,thats very true.but my module is running on a uniprocessor system
so i guess my previous arguments hold true on similar line.
OK, then I think in uniprocessor one which is submitted first should be
the one that runs first, as long as you don't create additional new
queue (thus new kernel thread).
I hope this clarify all your doubts. Again, sorry for this late reply.
regards,
Mulyadi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
