Re: workqueue thing

Arjan van de Ven
2009-12-21T11:11:43Z

On 12/21/2009 10:17, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.
>

I don't mind a good and clean design; and for sure sharing thread pools into one pool
is really good.
But if I have to choose between a complex "how to deal with deadlocks" algorithm, versus just
running some more threads in the pool, I'll pick the later.