linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] block: queue work on unbound wq

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:	Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:07:05 +0530
From:	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	airlied@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	Charles Garcia-Tobin <charles.garcia-tobin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] block: queue work on unbound wq

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Viresh.
>
> Sorry about the delay.  Lost this one somehow.
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:01:05PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Just wanted to make this clear before writing it:
>>
>> You want me to do something like (With better names):
>>
>> int wq_unbound_for_power_save_enabled = 0;
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_WQ_UNBOUND_FOR_POWER_SAVE
>> #define WQ_UNBOUND_FOR_POWER_SAVE   wq_unbound_for_power_save_enabled
>> #else
>> #define WQ_UNBOUND_FOR_POWER_SAVE 0
>>
>> And provide a call to enable/disable wq_unbound_for_power_save_enabled ??
>
> Not a call, probably a module_param() so that it can be switched
> on/off during boot.  You can make the param writable so that it can be
> flipped run-time but updating existing workqueues would be non-trivial
> and I don't think it's gonna be worthwhile.
>
> Thanks!

Does it make sense to collect this sort of power optimisation under a
CONFIG_PM sub-item, say, CONFIG_PM_OPTIMISATIONS?

For people tuning for power, it could be single place to go enable
stuff and for people looking for performance regressions it would be a
single place to make sure nothing is enabled.

/Amit
--
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/