linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueues: implement flush

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]

Message-ID: <20080615102252.GB156@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:22:52 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueues: implement flush_work()

On 06/14, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 05:59:51PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/14, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> ...
> > > Another question is if schedule_on_each_cpu() is really such a good
> > > example here: it seems these "xxx && yyy" examples could be faster,
> > > but I've lost track of this earlier thread.
> > 
> > schedule_on_each_cpu() can't use cancel_ + ->func(), the code should
> > be executed on the remote CPU.
> 
> ???
> Actually I meant this "xxx && yyy" schedule_on_each_cpu():
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121329259203187&w=2

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes, "xxx && yyy" needs only 1 wakeup, so it needs less CPU. But it also
more complex, and it is not easy to generalize this.

Oleg.

--
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/