proper comparison should be tasklet vs workqueue. this is because kernel thread creation has a "do_fork()" that will load the executable image into memory .... resource intensive...but what u do is to create workqueue...which will submit its work to a running kernel thread to be executed instead....no repeated creation of kernel thread.
by design, tasklet is bottom-half in its characteristics - cannot be delayed, no switching of CPU, no sleep function, all the time critical stuff etc. but workqueue will be scheduled when CPU is busy etc. But if u want to compare tasklet and workqueue here is a good writeup summary: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/419651?search_string=%26quot%3Btasklets%20vs.%20workqueues%26quot%3B;#419651 Key message quoted here: Normally, there is little decision between work queues or sotftirqs/tasklets. If the deferred work need to sleep, work queues are used. If the deferred work need not sleep, softirqs or tasklets are used. On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Lal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which one is faster between a tasklet and kernel thread in terms of > scheduling (i.e. who will be scheduled first?) > > -Lal -- Regards, Peter Teoh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
