linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/45] Create a dynamically sized pool of threads for doing very slow work items [ver #41]

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: <20081121101718.aa1dfc25.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:17:18 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/45] Create a dynamically sized pool of threads for
 doing very slow work items [ver #41]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:24:00 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > umm, if they're slow, why not create a kernel thread per operation? 
> > Why add the thread pool?
> 
> Because if someone does a tar of, say, a kernel tree, that'll create one
> thread per file...

OK.

>  This provides a limiter - and makes sure there are threads
> immediately available.

Those two objectives seem incompatible.  What does a caller do when the
limit has been hit?  Do the work synchronously?

--
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/