linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues

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:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, matthew.wilcox@...com,
	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> I just want to state that tasklets served their time well. But it's time
> to give them an honorable discharge.  So lets get rid of tasklets and
> given them a standing salute as they leave :-)

Well, independently of whether we actually discharge them or not, I do 
tend to always like things that split independent concepts up (whether 
they then end up being _implemented_ independently of each other or not is 
a separate issue).

So patches 1-4 all look fine to me. In fact, 5 looks ok too.

Whether we actually then want to do 6 is another matter. I think we'd need 
some measuring and discussion about that.

I'm absolutely 100% sure that we do *not* want to be in a situation where 
we have two different implementations of tasklets, and just keep the 
CONFIG variable and let people just choose one or the other.

So imnsho doing #6 is really something that makes sense only in a "let's 
measure this and decide which implementation is actually the better one", 
_not_ in the sense of merging it into the standard kernel and letting them 
fight it out in the long run.

But I'd happily merge 1-4 regardless after 2.6.22 is out.

Leaving patch 6 as a "only makes sense after we actually have some numbers 
about it", and patch 5 is a "could go either way" as far as I'm concerned 
(ie I could merge it together with the 1-4 series, but I think it's 
equally valid to just see it as a companion to 6).

Does that make sense to people?

		Linus
-
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/