| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <486B0298.5030508@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:22:48 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> To: benh@...nel.crashing.org CC: ksummit-2008-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Delayed interrupt work, thread pools Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Here's something that's been running in the back of my mind for some > time that could be a good topic of discussion at KS. > > In various areas (I'll come up with some examples later), kernel code > such as drivers want to defer some processing to "task level", for > various reasons such as locking (taking mutexes), memory allocation, > interrupt latency, or simply doing things that may take more time than > is reasonable to do at interrupt time or do things that may block. > > Currently, the main mechanism we provide to do that is workqueues. They > somewhat solve the problem, but at the same time, somewhat can make it > worse. > > The problem is that delaying a potentially long/sleeping task to a work > queue will have the effect of delaying everything else waiting on that > work queue. > how much of this would be obsoleted if we had irqthreads ? -- 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