| 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 Jan 2013 17:07:58 -0800 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: remove gcwq and make worker_pool the only backend abstraction Hey. On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:37:02PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > It seems like we'll need to support worker pools with custom > > attributes, which is planned to be implemented as extra worker_pools > > for the unbound CPU. Removing gcwq and having worker_pool as the top > > level abstraction makes things much simpler for such designs. Also, > > there's scalability benefit to not sharing locking and busy hash among > > different worker pools as worker pools w/ custom attributes are likely > > to have widely different memory / cpu locality characteristics. > > Could you tell me why extra worker_pools with custom attributes are needed? > Or could you give a reference link for this? Currently, there are two expected users - writeback and crypto. The former currently implements its own worker pool and the latter is using per-cpu workqueue but not particularly happy with it. Being bound to the issuing CPU seems a bit too limiting. 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