From: Mat Martineau <mathewm@codeaurora.org>
To: Dean Jenkins <djenkins@mvista.com>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A request to understand the design decisions why tasklets were changed to workqueues eg. hci_rx_task() to hci_rx_work()
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1204170751480.25494@mathewm-linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2qBzZwuiAaL99=mT5P+MQKXd-gc7zdn6x5f1sr5Kpw=tQytw@mail.gmail.com>
Dean -
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, Dean Jenkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am interested to the understand the design decisions for changing
> from tasklets to workqueues.
>
> Was there a fundamental flaw that necessitated the change ?
>
> I am asking because I am getting a Bluetooth "scheduling while atomic"
> failure on an ARM based 2.6.34 kernel (with some 2.6.37 Bluez
> backports). Changing to workqueues would avoid this issue as a
> workqueue use process context that can sleep.
>
> Thanks for any info on the design decisions.
Take a look at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.bluez.kernel/19535
and the thread it is part of. The main motivation was to eliminate
bugs and complexity arising from a mix of tasklet-context and
process-context code. Locking and concurrency problems have become
trickier with the introduction of the management interface, L2CAP
ERTM, and AMP.
There were big changes to the workqueue internals in 2.6.36, I don't
know if that will cause major issues when backporting current code to
2.6.34.
--
Mat Martineau
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-17 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-17 11:28 A request to understand the design decisions why tasklets were changed to workqueues eg. hci_rx_task() to hci_rx_work() Dean Jenkins
2012-04-17 15:09 ` Mat Martineau [this message]
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=alpine.DEB.2.02.1204170751480.25494@mathewm-linux \
--to=mathewm@codeaurora.org \
--cc=djenkins@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox