From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753838AbZA1IQh (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:16:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752406AbZA1IQ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:16:27 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:47017 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751668AbZA1IQ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:16:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH] create workqueue threads only when needed From: Peter Zijlstra To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Lai Jiangshan , Steven Rostedt , Alasdair G Kergon , Arjan van de Ven In-Reply-To: <20090128030224.GA4867@redhat.com> References: <20090128002714.GA5086@nowhere> <20090128030224.GA4867@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:15:39 +0100 Message-Id: <1233130539.10992.38.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 04:02 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I must admit, I don't like this patch. Perhaps I am wrong, mostly I > dislike the complications it adds. > > Anybody else please vote for this change? Because you asked ;-) I too am not particularly fond of it, for much the same reasons you mentioned. While I think its good to reduce the number of random kernel threads, I'm afraid this isn't a good way to do so. Why does everybody and his pony create their own workqueue, is that really because it deadlocks with keventd, or are there other reasons, if so, which, and can we solve those?