linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0 of 4] Generic AIO by scheduling stacks

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:	Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:56:02 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	zach.brown@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-aio@...ck.org, suparna@...ibm.com, bcrl@...ck.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 4] Generic AIO by scheduling stacks

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:33:01 -0800 (PST)

> So I actually like this, because it means that while we slow down
> real IO, we don't slow down the cached cases at all.

Even if you have everything, every page, every log file, in the page
cache, everything talking over the network wants to block.

Will you create a thread every time tcp_sendmsg() hits the send queue
limits?

Add some logging to tcp_sendmsg() on a busy web server if you do not
believe me :-)

The idea is probably excellent for operations on real files, but it's
going to stink badly for networking stuff.
-
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/