| 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: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:51:12 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, htejun@...il.com, bzolnier@...il.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] libata: use lazy workqueues for the pio task On 08/24/2009 12:42 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> No objections to the code, operationally... >> >> But it is disappointing that the "1 thread on UP" problem is not solved >> while changing this libata area. Is there no way to specify a minimum >> lazy-thread count? >> >> A key problem continues to be tying to the number of CPUs, which is >> quite inappropriate for libata. > > We'll solve that next, the first problem is reducing the per-cpu > threads. Lots of places use per-cpu workqueues because that is what is > available, not necessarily because it's an appropriate choice. Like the > ata_wq above, it's not even a good fit. Agreed + sounds great. Thanks -- both for hacking libata for this, and more generally, for attacking the too-many-kthreads problem! :) It's just sad how many unused workqueue threads hang about, on every modern Linux box. Jeff -- 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