Re: [PATCH] firmware_class: Move request_firmware_nowait() to workqueues

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday, March 15, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/15/12 13:07, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 15, 2012 08:50:15 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> Oddly enough a work_struct was already part of the firmware_work
> >> structure but nobody was using it. Instead of creating a new
> >> kthread for each request_firmware_nowait() just schedule the work
> >> on the system workqueue. This should avoid some overhead in
> >> forking new threads when they're not strictly necessary if
> >> workqueues are available.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I saw this while looking at this problem we're having.
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that stall all other
> > global workqueue tasks for up to 60 seconds [in worst case]?
> >
> > But I think we can get rid of the firmware_work work struct...
> >
> 
> My understanding is that with concurrency managed workqueues when the
> work item blocks another will be scheduled to run almost immediately. So
> before that change by Tejun workqueues would have been a bad idea
> because it could have blocked up to 60 second but now it should be fine
> because that work item will just be put to sleep and another request
> will run.

Please read the description of system_wq in workqueue.h.

You should have used either system_long_wq or system_nrt_wq (depending on
what you really need).

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/