linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2007 02:15:51 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:39:26 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:

> I just hope the latency of freeze_processes() is tolerable ..

It'll be roughly proportional to the number of processes, I guess: if we
have 100,000 processes (or threads) doing sleep(1000000) then yeah, it'll
take some time to wake them all up and capture them in refrigerator().

But I suspect a suitable fix for any problems which arise there is to
implement gang-offlining and onlining, rather than the present
one-cpu-at-a-time.  That'd be pretty simple to do: we already have sysfs
interfaces which take a cpumask.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/