On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:10:35AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:07:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:02:10AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > So far I just see you breaking existing setups because you don't want to > > > > support things that work perfectly well. > > > > > > It doesn't work as explained multiple times in this thread. > > > > It used to.. just not on recent kernels. You know 'enterprise' latency. > > If you're talking about khelfper and wanna restore it, it really > should be broken out into a separate kthread. It doesn't make any > sense to implement that in the workqueue framework. Why would you > implement a dedicated task inside a worker pool implementation which > makes use of the said tasks? There's even kthread_work interface > which pretty much provides workqueue-equivalent interface on top of a > single task for cases like this.
That would only solve one of my problems. People want to contain the unbound workqueues too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
