Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> * Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> One per PC card socket to avoid the sysfs locking crappyness that 
>> would otherwise deadlock, and to convert from the old unreadable state 
>> machine implementation to a much more readable linearly coded 
>> implementation.
>>
>> Could probably be eliminated if we had some mechanism to spawn a 
>> helper thread to do some task as required which didn't block other 
>> helper threads until it completes.
> 
> looks like the perfect usecase for threadlets. (threadlets only use up a 
> separate context if necessary and can be coded in the familiar 
> sequential/linear model)

Same response as to Andrew:  AFAICS that just increases complexity.

The simple path for programmers is writing straightforward code that 
does something like

	blah
	msleep()
	blah

or in pccardd's case,

	mutex_lock()
	blah
	mutex_unlock()

to permit sleeping without having to write more-complex code that deals 
with context transitions.

For slow-path, infrequently executed code, it is best to keep it as 
simple as possible.

	Jeff


-
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/