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: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:42:51 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> CC: Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, johannes@...solutions.net, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue Hello, On 06/19/2010 11:27 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Can you think of anything else which could benefit from high priority >> queueing? > > Over time we'll get more error handling, e.g. advanced NMI handling. > Maybe it could be useful for thermal handling too which is a similar > situation. > > To be honest I would prefer if there aren't that many more users, > the more users the less useful it becomes. As long as the actual frequency is low, the number of users should be okay. Okay, just one more question before adding it to todo list. Do you think it would really benefit from scalability provided by multiple workers? * Do machines ever report that many MCE errors? The usual rate seems like one per weeks or months even when they're frequent. * If a machine is actually reporting enough errors to overwhelm single error handling thread, does it even matter what we do? 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