| 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: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:34:56 +0200 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Keep kthreads at default priority On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 19:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 09:55 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:37:34PM +0000, tip-bot for Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c > > > index eb8751a..5fe7099 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/kthread.c > > > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c > > > @@ -16,8 +16,6 @@ > > > #include <linux/mutex.h> > > > #include <trace/events/sched.h> > > > > > > -#define KTHREAD_NICE_LEVEL (-5) > > > - > > > > Why don't we just redefine it to 0? We may find out later that we'd > > still prefer to have kernel threads have boost. > > Seems sensible, also the traditional reasoning behind this nice level is > that kernel threads do work on behalf of multiple tasks. Its a kind of > prio ceiling thing. True. None of our current threads are heavy enough to matter much. -Mike -- 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