From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:54:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:54:28 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:21262 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:54:17 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Subject: Re: 2.4.0-test13-pre1 lockup: run_task_queue or tty_io are wrong Date: 17 Dec 2000 12:23:33 -0800 Organization: Transmeta Corporation Message-ID: <91j7c5$pl1$1@penguin.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <20001217192351.A18244@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <20001217140530.A14173@vger.timpanogas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20001217140530.A14173@vger.timpanogas.org>, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > >Try thinking about the work to do model (since task queues are so similiar) >Having to "kick" these things should be automatic in the kernel. I could >do a lot of cool stuff with this in there, manos aside..... No, the "kicking" should _not_ be automatic. Th ewhol epoint of a lot of the task queues is that they are manual. The main use for them (apart from the tty layer, which could easily use something else) is the disk starter - where we want to delay the submission of requests to the disk until we've aggregated as many as possible. Which means that the "tq_disk" queue must absolutely not be kicked automatically. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/