linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2][PATCH] create workqueue threads only when needed

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:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:15:39 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH] create workqueue threads only when needed

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 04:02 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> I must admit, I don't like this patch. Perhaps I am wrong, mostly I
> dislike the complications it adds.
> 
> Anybody else please vote for this change?

Because you asked ;-)

I too am not particularly fond of it, for much the same reasons you
mentioned.

While I think its good to reduce the number of random kernel threads,
I'm afraid this isn't a good way to do so.

Why does everybody and his pony create their own workqueue, is that
really because it deadlocks with keventd, or are there other reasons, if
so, which, and can we solve those?

--
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/