> > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 12:14 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
quoted text
> > > > Right, and would be about 4k+sizeof(task_struct), some people might be
> > > > bothered, but most won't care.
> > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps, I misunderstand your intension. so can you point your
> > > > > previous discussion url?
> > > > 
> > > > my google skillz fail me, but once in a while people complain that we
> > > > have too many kernel threads.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway, if we can re-use this per-cpu workqueue for more goals, I guess
> > > > there is even less of an objection.
> > > 
> > > In general, you are right.
> > > but this is special case. mmap_sem is really widely used various subsystem and drivers.
> > > (because page fault via copy_user introduce to depend on mmap_sem)
> > > 
> > > Then, any work-queue reu-sing can cause similar dead-lock easily.
> > 
> > Yeah, I know, and the cpu-hotplug discussion needed another thread due
> > to yet another locking incident. I was hoping these two could go
> > together.
> 
> Yeah, I found its thread. (I think it is "work_on_cpu: helper for doing task on a CPU.", right?)
> So I'll read it soon.
> 
> Please wait a bit.

Done.

Now, I think smp_call_function() is better for this issue.
I'll try it.

Thanks a lot.

quoted text
> > Neither are general-purpose workqueues, both need to stay away from the
> > normal eventd due to deadlocks.
> > 
> > ego, does you extra thread ever use mmap_sem?
> 
> 
> 



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