linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workqueue: avoid nohz

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:46:37 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	cmetcalf@...hip.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: avoid nohz_full cores

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 09:56:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The problem with this is that workqueue currently doesn't distinguish
> > why work items are queued on per-cpu workqueues.  It can't tell
> > whether being bound to local CPU is for correctness or optimization
> > and thus can't break local execution guarantee for anybody.  We need
> > to hunt down all the ones which depend on local execution and annotate
> > them with explicit queue_work_on() before being able to do this.
> 
> This is moot on unbound workqueues, they can run wherever so it can
> never be a correctness thing, right?

The posted patch applies to both unbound and per-cpu workqueues.
There's a more comprehensive patchset currently being worked on by Lai
for unbound workqueues.

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/