linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Delayed interrupt work, thread pools

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: <m1zlozmg2k.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:12:51 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	ksummit-2008-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Delayed interrupt work, thread pools

Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> writes:

> The question is: is that significantly less overhead than just spawning
> a new full blown kernel thread ? enough to justify the complexity ? at
> the end of the day, it means allocating a stack (which on ppc64 is still
> 16K, I know it sucks)... 

I looked at this a while ago.  And right  now kernel_thread is fairly light.
kthread_create has latency issues because we need to queue up a task on
our kernel thread spawning daemon, and let it fork the child.  Needing
to go via the kthread spawning daemon didn't look fundamental, just something
that was a challenge to sort out.

Eric
--
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/