| 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, 22 Dec 2009 12:03:24 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com, johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org Subject: Re: workqueue thing On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 08:50 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > But as it stands I don't think its wise to replace the current workqueue > > implementation with this, esp since there are known heavy CPU users > > using it, nor have you addressed the queueing issue (or is that the > > restoration of the single-queue workqueue?) > > The queueing one is addressed and which CPU-heavy users are you > talking about? Workqueues have always been CPU-affine. Not much > changes for its users by cmwq. crypto for one (no clue what other bits we have atm, there might be some async raid-n helper bits too, or whatever). And yes that does change, the current design ensures we don't run more than one crypto job per cpu, whereas with your stuff that can be arbitrary many per cpu (up to some artificial limit of 127 or so). -- 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