Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1412312
| From | Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [patch net-next 16/18] mlxsw: coRE: Add mlxsw specific workqueue and use it for FDB notif. processing |
| Date | 2016-06-02 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rFBWW-753-35@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rFBWX-753-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFBWX-753-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFBWX-753-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
(cc'ing linux-kernel) Hello, On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:41:06AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 09:42:34PM CEST, bhaktipriya96@gmail.com wrote: > >Hi Jiri, > > > >I'm working on the workqueue project and I'm updating the legacy > >workqueue interface users to use the new workqueue API. > > > >This patch uses create_workqueue which is deprecated and needs an > >update. > > > >Your commit description says > >"It makes sense to create separate workqueue just for mlxsw driver > >in this case and do not pollute system_wq." > > > >I would like to inquire what "polluting system_wq" means. > > As the number of queued items is much bigger than originally expected, I > wanted to have a separate wq for our driver. I believe it makes sense. Unless it can queue a very large number of concurrent work items and thus requires explicit concurrency limit, using a dedicated wq or not doesn't make any difference. Sharing system_wq doesn't pollute it. All workqueues share the same worker pools anyway. Thanks. -- tejun
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [patch net-next 16/18] mlxsw: coRE: Add mlxsw specific workqueue and use it for FDB notif. processing Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-06-02 16:40 +0200
csiph-web