linux-kernel - Re: "partical" kthread conversion

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]

Message-ID: <m1r6pzw7im.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 May 2007 09:49:05 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Dean Nelson <dcn@....com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "partical" kthread conversion

Dean Nelson <dcn@....com> writes:

> I'd typed up some questions for you about the new patch I need to create
> which I'd just sent to you, so I won't repeat them here.
>
> Before proceeding to far with your above changes, you might wait to see
> the proposal that Robin Holt is putting together for a kthread pool.
> I'm not sure how spawning a thread (which involves allocation of the
> task_struct amongst other things, plus scheduling) can beat a wake_up()
> of an already existing thread for cost time-wise.

A reasonable point, although if you don't happen to sleep in the allocations
I suspect time wise it's pretty much a wash.

I have some other reasons I might need the capability of clone a thread
from a non-parent process, and it has the potential to simplify some things
in the kthread case so I'm going to finish investigating, since I believe
I have figured out a path to that target.

Eric
-
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/