Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +static int cbus_event_thread(void *data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int i, non_empty = 0, empty = 0;
> > > > > + struct cbus_event_container *c;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + daemonize(cbus_name);
> > > > > + allow_signal(SIGTERM);
> > > > > + set_user_nice(current, 19);
> > > >
> > > > Please use the kthread api for managing this thread.
> > > >
> > > > Is a new kernel thread needed?
> > >
> > > Logic behind cbus is following:
> > > 1. make insert operation return as soon as possible,
> > > 2. deferring actual message delivering to the safe time
> > >
> > > That thread does second point.
> >
> > But does it need a new thread rather than using the existing keventd?
>
> Yes, it is much cleaner [especially from performance tuning point]
> to use own kernel thread than pospone all work to the queued work.
>
Why? Unless keventd is off doing something else (rare), it should be
exactly equivalent. And if keventd _is_ off doing something else then that
will slow down this kernel thread too, of course.
Plus keventd is thread-per-cpu and quite possibly would be faster.
-
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/
