On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:34:08AM -0800, Hari Kanigeri wrote:
> Tejun,
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:24:21AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Using dedicated workqueue or system_wq doesn't make any difference in
> >> terms of execution latency a
Tejun,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:24:21AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Using dedicated workqueue or system_wq doesn't make any difference in
>> terms of execution latency anymore. Sleeping work items no longer
>> delay execution of other work ite
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:24:21AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Using dedicated workqueue or system_wq doesn't make any difference in
> terms of execution latency anymore. Sleeping work items no longer
> delay execution of other work items. If mailbox is very latency
> sensitive, it might make sense
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 03:35:45PM -0600, Kanigeri, Hari wrote:
> This was changed to dedicated work queue because of performance issues
> when there is heavy mailbox traffic between the cores.
>
> Reference:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg24240.html
Using ded
Tejun,
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> With cmwq, there's no reason to use a separate workqueue for mailbox.
> Use the system_wq instead. mbox->rxq->work is sync flushed in
> omap_mbox_fini() to make sure it's not running on any cpu, which makes
> sure that no mbox work is run
With cmwq, there's no reason to use a separate workqueue for mailbox.
Use the system_wq instead. mbox->rxq->work is sync flushed in
omap_mbox_fini() to make sure it's not running on any cpu, which makes
sure that no mbox work is running when omap_mbox_exit() is entered.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
