All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>
Cc: ACPI mailing list
	<acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org>,
	kernel list
	<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: acpi_os_queue_for_execution()
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 15:27:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021228202716.GA28570@gtf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021223181747.GA10363-I/5MKhXcvmPrBKCeMvbIDA@public.gmane.org>

On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Acpi seems to create short-lived kernel threads, and I don't quite
> understand why. 
> 
> In thermal.c
> 
> 
>                         tz->timer.data = (unsigned long) tz;
>                         tz->timer.function = acpi_thermal_run;
>                         tz->timer.expires = jiffies + (HZ * sleep_time) / 1000;
>                         add_timer(&(tz->timer));
> 
> and acpi_thermal_run creates kernel therad that runs
> acpi_thermal_check. Why is not acpi_thermal_check called directly? I
> don't like idea of thread being created every time thermal zone needs
> to be polled...

This is the standard way to get process context [i.e. somewhere where
you can sleep].  The new delayed-work workqueue code in 2.5.x does
something almost exactly like that under the covers.

That said, it sounds like you found something to fix in ACPI:

In 2.4.x ACPI, it should be using schedule_task(), and in 2.5.x it should
be using schedule_work(), if this is truly the intention of the ACPI
subsystem.

There shouldn't be much reason to continually spawn single-run threads
when there is already an API for doing so.

	Jeff

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: ACPI mailing list <acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: acpi_os_queue_for_execution()
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 15:27:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021228202716.GA28570@gtf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021223181747.GA10363@elf.ucw.cz>

On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Acpi seems to create short-lived kernel threads, and I don't quite
> understand why. 
> 
> In thermal.c
> 
> 
>                         tz->timer.data = (unsigned long) tz;
>                         tz->timer.function = acpi_thermal_run;
>                         tz->timer.expires = jiffies + (HZ * sleep_time) / 1000;
>                         add_timer(&(tz->timer));
> 
> and acpi_thermal_run creates kernel therad that runs
> acpi_thermal_check. Why is not acpi_thermal_check called directly? I
> don't like idea of thread being created every time thermal zone needs
> to be polled...

This is the standard way to get process context [i.e. somewhere where
you can sleep].  The new delayed-work workqueue code in 2.5.x does
something almost exactly like that under the covers.

That said, it sounds like you found something to fix in ACPI:

In 2.4.x ACPI, it should be using schedule_task(), and in 2.5.x it should
be using schedule_work(), if this is truly the intention of the ACPI
subsystem.

There shouldn't be much reason to continually spawn single-run threads
when there is already an API for doing so.

	Jeff




  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-12-28 20:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-12-23 18:17 acpi_os_queue_for_execution() Pavel Machek
2002-12-23 18:17 ` acpi_os_queue_for_execution() Pavel Machek
     [not found] ` <20021223181747.GA10363-I/5MKhXcvmPrBKCeMvbIDA@public.gmane.org>
2002-12-28 20:27   ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2002-12-28 20:27     ` acpi_os_queue_for_execution() Jeff Garzik
     [not found]     ` <20021228202716.GA28570-bB7D8CACdjo@public.gmane.org>
2002-12-29 18:11       ` acpi_os_queue_for_execution() Pavel Machek
2002-12-29 18:11         ` acpi_os_queue_for_execution() Pavel Machek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20021228202716.GA28570@gtf.org \
    --to=jgarzik-e+axbwqsrlaavxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.