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  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:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:33:31 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <>,,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Gregory Haskins <>,
	Oleg Nesterov <>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/3] rt: PI-workqueue support

On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 14:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Daniel wrote this bit, but I tend to agree with him, but can't give his
> rationale. Mine is that worklets are typically asynchonous and thus its
> prio should not depend on temporal things like boosting.
> OTOH it would probably make sense to allow it to depend on it through
> the barrier constructs, but for that I have to hook the completions into
> the PI chain. Something that needs more thought.

Yeah, I think Peter summarized it .. Since the task isn't waiting on
work when it's inserted it didn't seem right to use a priority that may
be boosted, since the work isn't preventing completion .. I think the
only time you would want to transfer the boosted priority is when a task
gets blocked, which does happen when you flush the workqueue.

Although, If there is one area of this code that needs attention I think
it's the PI stuff, it wasn't my first priority at the time .. I also
recall Oleg find some issue with it ..


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists