linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling

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:	Sat, 3 Feb 2007 00:04:15 +0000
From:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling

> When parallelising "real work", I absolutely agree with you: we should use 
> threads. But you need to look at what it is we parallelize here, and ask 
> yourself why we're doing what we're doing, and why people aren't *already* 
> just using a separate thread for it.

Because its a pain in the arse and because its very hard to self tune. If
you've got async_anything then the thread/fibril/synchronous/whatever
decision can be made kernel side based upon expected cost and other
tradeoffs, even if its as dumb as per syscall or per syscall/filp type
guessing.

Alan
-
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/