On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:24:21AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
Using dedicated workqueue or system_wq doesn't make any difference in
terms of execution latency anymore. Sleeping work items no longer
delay execution of other work items. If mailbox is very latency
sensitive, it might make sense to
Tejun,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:24:21AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
Using dedicated workqueue or system_wq doesn't make any difference in
terms of execution latency anymore. Sleeping work items no longer
delay execution of other
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:34:08AM -0800, Hari Kanigeri wrote:
Tejun,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:24:21AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
Using dedicated workqueue or system_wq doesn't make any difference in
terms of execution
With cmwq, there's no reason to use a separate workqueue for mailbox.
Use the system_wq instead. mbox-rxq-work is sync flushed in
omap_mbox_fini() to make sure it's not running on any cpu, which makes
sure that no mbox work is running when omap_mbox_exit() is entered.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Tejun,
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
With cmwq, there's no reason to use a separate workqueue for mailbox.
Use the system_wq instead. mbox-rxq-work is sync flushed in
omap_mbox_fini() to make sure it's not running on any cpu, which makes
sure that no mbox
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 03:35:45PM -0600, Kanigeri, Hari wrote:
This was changed to dedicated work queue because of performance issues
when there is heavy mailbox traffic between the cores.
Reference:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg24240.html
Using
