linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/12] workqueue: add WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE to system_long

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:	Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:06:48 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/12] workqueue: add WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE to system_long_wq


Hi, Tejun

On 09/27/2012 02:38 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:20:42AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> works in system_long_wq will be running long.
>> add WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE to system_long_wq to avoid these kinds of works occupy
>> the running wokers which delay the normal works.
>>
>> if system_long_wq is designed for only sleep-long works, not running-long works,
>> this patch makes no sense.
> 
> There "long" doesn't mean it's gonna consume a lot of CPU cycles, so
> it should contribute to concurrency management.  The plan is to remove
> system_long_wq once we got rid of flushing of system_wq via
> flush_scheduled_work() and directly through flush_workqueue().  I
> think we're pretty close, so let's not add more usage of it.
> 

OK.

But does we need a stand-alone workqueue for work_on_cpu() as it is original
introduced? (2d3854a3)

Thanks,
Lai
--
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/