From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu,
peterz@infradead.org, awalls@radix.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com,
rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org,
dhowells@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
andi@firstfloor.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:19:47 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B564C23.1030708@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100119063718.3f1f39cc@linux.intel.com>
Hello, Arjan.
On 01/19/2010 11:37 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> This too can be implemented using wq directly. More below.
>
> however you are forcing the function to be split in pieces,
> which makes for a more complex programming model.
> For example, I have trouble proving to myself that your ata conversion
> is acutally correct.
I think it is. :-)
>> The tradeoff changes with the worker pool implementation can be shared
>> with workqueue which provides its own ways to control concurrency and
>> synchronize.
>
> while I don't mind sharing the pool implementation (all 20 lines of
> it ;-), I don't think the objective of sharing some implementation
> detail is worth complicating the programming model.
Oh yeah, we can definitely pay some lines of code for a separate
synchronization model if it makes driver writers' lives easier. I'm
just wondering whether the benefit is enough to justify a separate
sync model.
>> Before, the cookie based synchronization is something
>> inherent to the async mechanism. The async worker pool was needed and
>> the synchronization mechanism came integrated with it. Now that the
>> backend can be replaced with workqueue which supplies its own ways of
>> synchronization, the cookie based synchronization model needs stronger
>> justification as it no longer comes as a integral part of something
>> bigger which is needed anyway.
>
> the wq model is either "full async" or "fully ordered".
> the cookie mechanism allows for "run async for the expensive bit, and
> then INSIDE THE SAME FUNCTION, synchronize, and then run some more".
Hmmm...
>> If so, we can leave the list based cookie synchronization alone and
>> simply use wq's to provide concurrency only without using its
>> synchronization mechanisms (flushes).
>
> can you flush from inside a wq element? That's the critical part
> that makes the cookie based system easy to program.
Yeah, you can flush individual works from other works and wqs from
works running from different wqs. What's not allowed is flushing the
wq a work is running on from the work. Let's say if the flush code
can be modified to do so, would that change your opinion?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-20 0:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-18 0:57 [PATCHSET] concurrency managed workqueue, take#3 Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 01/40] sched: consult online mask instead of active in select_fallback_rq() Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 10:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-18 11:26 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 02/40] sched: rename preempt_notifiers to sched_notifiers and refactor implementation Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 03/40] sched: refactor try_to_wake_up() Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 04/40] sched: implement __set_cpus_allowed() Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 9:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-18 11:22 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-19 1:07 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-19 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-20 8:35 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-20 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-20 9:00 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-24 8:18 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 05/40] sched: make sched_notifiers unconditional Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 06/40] sched: add wakeup/sleep sched_notifiers and allow NULL notifier ops Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 9:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-18 11:31 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 12:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-19 1:04 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-19 8:28 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-19 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-20 8:47 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 07/40] sched: implement try_to_wake_up_local() Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 08/40] acpi: use queue_work_on() instead of binding workqueue worker to cpu0 Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 09/40] stop_machine: reimplement without using workqueue Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 10/40] workqueue: misc/cosmetic updates Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 11/40] workqueue: merge feature parameters into flags Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 12/40] workqueue: define both bit position and mask for work flags Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 13/40] workqueue: separate out process_one_work() Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 14/40] workqueue: temporarily disable workqueue tracing Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 15/40] workqueue: kill cpu_populated_map Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 16/40] workqueue: update cwq alignement Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 17/40] workqueue: reimplement workqueue flushing using color coded works Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 18/40] workqueue: introduce worker Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 19/40] workqueue: reimplement work flushing using linked works Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 20/40] workqueue: implement per-cwq active work limit Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 21/40] workqueue: reimplement workqueue freeze using max_active Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 22/40] workqueue: introduce global cwq and unify cwq locks Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 23/40] workqueue: implement worker states Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 24/40] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplugging support using trustee Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 25/40] workqueue: make single thread workqueue shared worker pool friendly Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 26/40] workqueue: use shared worklist and pool all workers per cpu Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 27/40] workqueue: implement concurrency managed dynamic worker pool Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 28/40] workqueue: increase max_active of keventd and kill current_is_keventd() Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 29/40] workqueue: add system_wq and system_single_wq Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 30/40] workqueue: implement work_busy() Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 2:52 ` Andy Walls
2010-01-18 5:41 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 31/40] libata: take advantage of cmwq and remove concurrency limitations Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 15:48 ` Stefan Richter
2010-01-19 0:49 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 32/40] async: introduce workqueue based alternative implementation Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 6:01 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-18 8:49 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 15:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-19 0:57 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-19 0:57 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-19 7:56 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-19 14:37 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-20 0:19 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2010-01-20 0:31 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-20 2:08 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-20 6:03 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-20 8:24 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-22 10:59 ` [PATCH] async: use workqueue for worker pool Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 33/40] async: convert async users to use the new implementation Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 34/40] async: kill original implementation Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 35/40] fscache: convert object to use workqueue instead of slow-work Tejun Heo
2010-02-12 18:03 ` David Howells
2010-02-13 5:43 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-15 15:04 ` David Howells
2010-02-16 3:40 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-16 3:59 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-16 18:05 ` David Howells
2010-02-16 23:50 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-18 11:50 ` David Howells
2010-02-18 12:33 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 36/40] fscache: convert operation " Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 37/40] fscache: drop references to slow-work Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 38/40] cifs: use workqueue instead of slow-work Tejun Heo
2010-01-19 12:20 ` Jeff Layton
2010-01-20 0:15 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-20 0:56 ` Jeff Layton
2010-01-20 1:23 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-22 11:14 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2010-01-22 11:45 ` Jeff Layton
2010-01-24 8:25 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-24 12:13 ` Jeff Layton
2010-01-25 15:25 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 39/40] gfs2: " Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 9:45 ` Steven Whitehouse
2010-01-18 11:24 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 12:07 ` Steven Whitehouse
2010-01-19 1:00 ` Tejun Heo
2010-01-19 8:46 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 0:57 ` [PATCH 40/40] slow-work: kill it Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 1:03 ` perf-wq.c used to generate synthetic workload Tejun Heo
2010-01-18 16:13 ` [PATCHSET] concurrency managed workqueue, take#3 Stefan Richter
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=4B564C23.1030708@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=awalls@radix.net \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.