linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues

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:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:58:44 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues

On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:38 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > > And this is something that might be fine for benchmarking, but not something
> > > we should put in.  Keeping two wildly different implementation of core
> > > functionality with very different behaviour around is quite bad.  Better
> > > kill tasklets once for all.
> > 
> > Honestly, I highly doubted that this would make it up to Linus's tree.
> 
> that's where it belongs - but it first needs the cleanups suggested by 
> Christoph.

I had the impression that he didn't want it in, but instead wanted each
driver to be changed separately.

> 
> > My aim was to get this into -mm, [...]
> 
> that would be the first step towards getting it upstream.
> 
> > and perhaps even turn on the tasklets-as-workqueues as default.
> 
> that is a hack that shouldnt be in the patch. People can unapply/apply a 
> patch just as well as they can flip a .config switch.

So should the patch be then to not even have the tasklet_softirq there
at all?  Have the patch simply replace the tasklets with workqueues, and
if someone doesn't like that, then they can simply remove the patch?

-- Steve


-
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/