linux-kernel - Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree

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:	Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:25:11 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm
 tree

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:56:44AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:31:41 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Confused... in this case I do not understand why do you dislike the
> > idea to kill khelper_wq.
> 
> Yes, you are confused.  I was agreeing with you:
> 
>  On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:56:12 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>  > Can't we simply kill khelper_wq and use system_unbound_wq instead?

BTW, why does it have to be unbound_wq?  Is it expected consume large
amount of CPU cycles?

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/