Hello Tejun,
On (03/07/16 10:49), Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:10:47AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > A new version. Switched to [printk] kthread.
>
> There are some benefits to using a percpu workqueue with CPU_INTENSIVE
> set or an unbound workqueue. It'd need WQ_RESCUER so it'd still
> create a dedicated thread which is used under heavy memory pressure
> but workqueue will usaully give you local (cpu or node) worker. One
> reason to use kthread directly tho is minimizing the amount of
> dependency which is pretty important for printk. If we decide to use
> kthread instead of workqueue, let's please do it for the right reason.
thanks.
I'd personally prefer to go with the "less dependency" option -- a dedicated
kthread, I think. mostly for the sake of simplicity. I agree with the point
that console_unlock() has unpredictable execution time, and in general case
we would have a busy kworker (or sleeping in console_lock() or doing
cond_resched()) and an idle extra WQ_RESCUER kthread, with activation rules
that don't depend on printk. printk with dedicated printk-kthread seems
easier to control. how does it sound?
-ss
