On 4/27/07, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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...
Ok, got that.
>> >> > 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.
Yes it did help. Thank you. ~psr
regards, Mulyadi
-- play the game -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
