| 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: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:02:26 +0800 From: Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] workqueue: advance concurrency management On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote: > 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 - waking_up() callback doesn't win too much in this. > the cache footprint gets smaller, cache footprint also be reduced in different way in the patchset. and memory atomic operations are reduced. > so unless there's a clear indication that the suggested Only simple. and remove the optimization from rare cases. > 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists