On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 14:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Daniel wrote this bit, but I tend to agree with him, but can't give his > rationale. Mine is that worklets are typically asynchonous and thus its > prio should not depend on temporal things like boosting. > > OTOH it would probably make sense to allow it to depend on it through > the barrier constructs, but for that I have to hook the completions into > the PI chain. Something that needs more thought.
Yeah, I think Peter summarized it .. Since the task isn't waiting on work when it's inserted it didn't seem right to use a priority that may be boosted, since the work isn't preventing completion .. I think the only time you would want to transfer the boosted priority is when a task gets blocked, which does happen when you flush the workqueue. Although, If there is one area of this code that needs attention I think it's the PI stuff, it wasn't my first priority at the time .. I also recall Oleg find some issue with it .. Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/