was discussed here in October. This work has been
progressing, with some of the associated clean-up patches being merged for
2.6.33; the main part of the work would appear to be on a path for merging
in 2.6.34. Or maybe not: some developers are starting to express some
The loudest complaints come from Peter Zijlstra, who would rather see
effort go into converting workqueue users to using threaded interrupt
handlers instead. To developers like Peter, the new workqueues look like a
bunch of new complexity which could create new problems (management of
CPU-intensive workqueue tasks, for example) while failing to address other
issues, including the locking problems which can plague workqueue users
Tejun has responded with a description of
some of the problems being solved by the redone workqueues, concluding:
Shifting complexity out of peripheral code to better crafted and
managed core code is the right thing to do and it will shift a lot
of complexity out of peripheral codes.
That may actually be where some of the trouble lies: the patch set, in its
current state, does not really demonstrate this shift in complexity. So
Ingo Molnar has requested some example
conversions that show the advantages of concurrency-managed workqueues:
For this particular patchset it should be possible to identify
existing patterns of code in the existing code base of 6+ millions
lines of Linux driver code that would make the advantages of this
+2000 lines of core kernel code plain obvious. There were multiple
claims of problems with the current abstractions - so there sure
must be a way to show off the new code in a few places.
Tejun has indicated that he will work to provide this demonstration.
Should the next version of the patch set prove convincing on this front,
the new workqueues might still be on-track for 2.6.34.
to post comments)