From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754892AbZKTGZI (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:25:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754128AbZKTGZH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:25:07 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:34941 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751005AbZKTGZG (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:25:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4B063614.5030105@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:20 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; ko-KR; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 SUSE/3.0b4-3.6 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, awalls@radix.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, mingo@elte.hu, jens.axboe@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, avi@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] acpi: use queue_work_on() instead of binding workqueue worker to cpu0 References: <1258692407-8985-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1258692407-8985-8-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20091119210909.b112bc77.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20091119210909.b112bc77.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, 11/20/2009 02:09 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> - kacpid_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("kacpid"); >> - bind_workqueue(kacpid_wq); >> - kacpi_notify_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("kacpi_notify"); >> - bind_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq); >> - kacpi_hotplug_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("kacpi_hotplug"); >> - bind_workqueue(kacpi_hotplug_wq); >> + kacpid_wq = create_workqueue("kacpid"); >> + kacpi_notify_wq = create_workqueue("kacpi_notify"); >> + kacpi_hotplug_wq = create_workqueue("kacpi_hotplug"); > > Well that sucks. We create an additional ((num_possible_cpus()-1)*3) > kernel threads just because the previous code was "unorthodox"? > > I guess that problem goes away with concurrency-managed workqueues. > But please let's not merge this patch without also merging > concurrency-managed workqueues! Yeah, it's just prepping the code for the conversion to concurrency managed workqueues. I'll put this into linux-next for some time without full conversion but it will never go upstream without it. Thanks. -- tejun