linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/19] workqueue: implement concurrency managed workqueue

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]

Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2009 07:49:59 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] workqueue: implement concurrency managed
 workqueue

On Thu,  1 Oct 2009 17:09:18 +0900 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> To solve the above issues, this patch implements concurrency-managed
> workqueue.

Seems reasonable.

This approach would appear to rule out the option of setting a work
thread's state (scheduling policy, scheduling priority, uid, etc) to
anything other than some default.

I guess that's unlikely to be a problem if we haven't yet had a need to
do that, but I'd be a bit surprised to discover that nobody has done
that sort of thing yet?  Nobody has niced up their workqueue threads?

--
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/