From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755159AbZLUJR5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:17:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754778AbZLUJR4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:17:56 -0500 Received: from 0122700014.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.99.235]:47311 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751528AbZLUJR4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:17:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:17:54 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, awalls@radix.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net Subject: Re: workqueue thing Message-ID: <20091221091754.GG4489@kernel.dk> References: <1261141088-2014-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1261143924.20899.169.camel@laptop> <20091218135033.GB8678@basil.fritz.box> <4B2B9949.1000608@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B2B9949.1000608@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 18 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > in addition, threads are cheap. Linux has no technical problem with > running 100's of kernel threads (if not 1000s); they cost basically a > task struct and a stack (2 pages) each and that's about it. making an > elaborate-and-thus-fragile design to save a few kernel threads is > likely a bad design direction... One would hope not, since that is by no means outside of what you see on boxes today... Thousands. The fact that they are cheap, is not an argument against doing it right. Conceptually, I think the concurrency managed work queue pool is a much cleaner (and efficient) design. -- Jens Axboe