From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to
	workqueue infrastructure
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:02:25 -0700
Message-ID: <1186002145.2636.181.camel@imap.mvista.com>
References: <20070801002407.4973.54778.stgit@novell1.haskins.net>
	 <1185940340.2636.97.camel@imap.mvista.com>
	 <1185987663.12034.99.camel@twins> <20070801181253.GA90@tv-sign.ru>
	 <1185992994.2636.142.camel@imap.mvista.com>
	 <20070801201802.GA225@tv-sign.ru>
	 <1186000468.2636.168.camel@imap.mvista.com>
	 <20070801205053.GA263@tv-sign.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Return-path: <linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.158]:47035 "EHLO
	gateway-1237.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754526AbXHAVER (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:04:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20070801205053.GA263@tv-sign.ru>
Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:50 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:18 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:12 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > And I personally think it is not very useful, even if it was correct.
> > > > > You can create your own workqueue and change the priority of cwq->thread.
> > > > 
> > > > This change is more dynamic than than just setting a single priority ..
> > > > There was some other work going on around this, so it's not totally
> > > > clear what the benefits are ..
> > > 
> > > Yes, I see. But still I think the whole idea is broken, not just the
> > > implementation.
> > 
> > It's translating priorities through the work queues, which doesn't seem
> > to happen with the current implementation. A high priority, say
> > SCHED_FIFO priority 99, task may have to wait for a nice -5 work queue
> > to finish..
> 
> Why should that task wait?

If the high priority tasks is waiting for the work to complete..
Assuming the scenario happens which your more likely to know than me.. 

I suppose in the flush_workqueue situation a thread could be waiting on
the lower priority work queue ..

> > > What about delayed_work? insert_work() will use ->normal_prio of
> > > the random interrupted process, while queue_work() uses current.
> > 
> > Actually it would be the priority of the timer softirq .. I think what
> > is desired here would be saving the priority of the task calling
> > delayed_work then using that..
> 
> But mainline calls  __do_softirq() from interrupt (irq_exit).

Yeah, I suppose your right in that case .. In -rt softirq's are all in
threads so it would be the timer softirq thread..

Daniel