From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:37:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:37:04 -0500 Received: from vena.lwn.net ([206.168.112.25]:59276 "HELO eklektix.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:37:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20030329214822.27254.qmail@eklektix.com> To: J S Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Tasklets vs. Task Queues for Deferred Processing From: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:14:37 EST." <1048893277.4058.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:48:22 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I have read in the O'Reilly linux device drivers > book that tasklets always run in interrupt time. Also, I guess the only > task_queue that is in process context is the scheduler task queue. I've > seen in a few places that task queues are on their way out and tasklets > are being used instead. Is this completely true? All true. If you're developing for 2.4, you can use schedule_task() and life will be OK. For 2.5, you really want to use work queues instead; see http://lwn.net/Articles/23634/ for a description of how to do that. jon Jonathan Corbet Executive editor, LWN.net corbet@lwn.net