linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] aio: avoid using queue_delayed_work in aio_kick

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: <200806301120.27743.knikanth@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:20:27 +0530
From:	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: avoid using queue_delayed_work in aio_kick_handler to schedule itself

On Friday 27 June 2008 18:41:37 Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de> writes:
> > Avoid using queue_delayed_work in aio_kick_handler() to run itself
> > immediately. Instead use aio_run_all_iocbs()
>
> Can you give some rationale for this change?  Also, how did you test it?
>

The comment in aio_kick_handler(), "we're in a worker thread already, don't 
use queue_delayed_work" triggered me to do this. Ran multiple instances 
of Stephen Hemminger's aio cp for basic testing.

I think this would make it unfair between different kioctx? May be only the 
comment should be removed? 

Thanks
Nikanth Karthikesan






--
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/