linux-kernel - Re: workqueue thing

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, 23 Dec 2009 09:43:32 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stijn Devriendt <highguy@...il.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, awalls@...ix.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mi@...per.es
Subject: Re: workqueue thing

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 09:17 +0100, Stijn Devriendt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > One reason I liked a more dynamic frame work for this is that it
> > has the potential to be exposed to user space and allow automatic
> > work partitioning there based on available cores.  User space
> > has a lot more CPU consumption than the kernel.
> >
> Basically, this is exactly what I was trying to solve with my
> sched_wait_block patch. It was broken in all ways, but the ultimate
> goal was to have concurrency managed workqueues (to nick the term)
> in userspace and have a way out when I/O hits the workqueue.

Don't we have the problem of wakeup concurrency here?

Forking on blocking is only half the problem (and imho the easy half).

--
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/