Hello, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:09:23PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Now that my exams done.... > > Can you spare me from using a workqueue?
I'd much prefer if you convert to workqueue. > > The point is that using current model I wake the worker thread as much > > as I want to, and I know that it will be woken once an will do all the > > work till request queue is empty. You can do exactly the same thing by scheduling the same work item multiple times. "Waking up" just becomes "scheduling the work item". > > With workqueues, it doesn't work this way. I have to pass the request as > > a work item or something like that. > > Any pointers? No, there's no reason to change the structure of the code in any way. Just use a work item as you would use a kthread. > Also probably due to that reason MMC doesn't use a workqueue ether, but > a raw kthread, in pretty much same way I do. Mostly because I haven't gotten around to convert it yet. The problems with direct kthread usage are that they're much more difficult to get completely correct with freeze and exit conditions - the last time I checked it was easier to spot broken ones than correct ones - and they create dedicated threads which usually are underutilized. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
