| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:16:13 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> CC: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, avi@...hat.com, efault@....de, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] sched: implement try_to_wake_up_local() Hello, On 12/08/2009 05:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:27 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> >>> What happens when you run out of memory and the workqueue progress is >>> needed to get free memory? >> >> That's when the "rescuer" workers kick in. All workqueues which might >> be used during allocation paths are required to have one. When >> manager fails to fork a new worker, it summons the rescuers. They >> migrate to the distressed cpu and processes only the works from their >> specific workqueues thus guaranteeing forward progress. > > What happens if the rescue worker is tied up on another cpu in a > deadlock avoidance game, which requires progress on this cpu in order to > resolve it? Hmmm.... I think one rescuer thread per a workqueue is enough to guarantee forward-progress. If there are workqueues which have inter-cpu dependency, we'll probably need per-cpu rescuers but is there any? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists