Re: [PATCH 1/4] fastboot: Asynchronous function calls to speed up kernel boot

Andi Kleen
2009-01-04T19:49:46Z

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:09:32AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:05:26 +0100
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > Surely the thread should die again boot up? On module load
> > synchronisity is usually not a problem.
>
> sadly that's not correct in practice based on the fast boot work we've
> done.

Hmm, but I'm not sure your current code is module safe, in particular
against unloading again. You would likely need a barrier at the end
of module load at least.

>
> >
> > Personally I think it would be better to make this more generic.
> > Various subsystems have thread pool implementations now,
>
> sort of kinda. If a good one appears I'd be happy to build on top of
> that, assuming it's generic enough.

I think you can just create a separate barrier primitive which
will work independently of any special thread managers.

>
> > and this
> > is just another variant that except for the sequence stuff
> > isn't all that much different. So it would be better to have
> > a generic worker thread manager that just supports these
> > barriers too.
>
> ... or maybe think about seeing this system as exactly that thread
> manager?

I'm not sure it's generic enough.

-Andi

--
ak@linux.intel.com