Re: [PATCH UPDATED 1/3] vhost: replace vhost_workqueue with per-vhost kthread

Tejun Heo
2010-07-26T15:47:36Z

On 07/26/2010 05:34 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 07/26/2010 05:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> BTW, kthread_worker would benefit from the optimization I implemented
>> here as well.
>
> Hmmm... I'm not quite sure whether it's an optimization. I thought
> the patch was due to feeling uncomfortable about using barriers? Is
> it an optimization?

Yeah, one less smp_mb() in execution path. The lock dancing in
flush() is ugly but then again mucking with barriers could be harder
to understand. Care to send a patch against wq#for-next tree?

Thanks.

--
tejun