| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:21:38 +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 Monday 30 June 2008 11:20:27 Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > 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? > Anyway we are scheduling it again with timeout of 0, so fairness shouldnt be a problem? If yes, wouldn't this change reduce the overhead of queuing the work again, and repeated lock/unlock. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists