linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] workqueue: advance concurrency management

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:11:55 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] workqueue: advance concurrency management

Hey,

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 06:10:57AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Ping.

Sorry, I've been at collab summit / lsf.  Plus, it's a bit too late
for for-3.10 anyway.  Anyways, after glancing over it, here are my
preliminary thoughts.  The first one looks good but I'm not sure about
dropping nr_running adjustment.  The only real benefit coming from
that is dropping a sched callback and if there's any performance /
overhead impact, I'm afraid it's gonna be negative.  There are actual
benefits in using as few tasks as possible - the cache footprint gets
smaller, so unless there's a clear indication that the suggested
behavior is better in some way, I'm not sure what we're buying with
the proposed changes.

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/