| 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: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:23:40 +0200 From: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ia.com> To: ext Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net> Cc: ext Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>, ext Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> Subject: Re: linux-next: workqueues tree build failure On Thursday 26 November 2009 14:49:56 ext Andy Walls wrote: > > Peter, > > I would suspect using a single-threaded workqueue is better than a > wake_up() of another thread. IIRC, after queuing work, the workqueue's > single thread may run almost immediately on the same processor. With > waking up sleeping threads, I've run into scheduler delays around 10 ms > on a dual core x86_64 desktop system. Hello Andy, I have sent the patch which changes from rt to singlethread, I hope it fixes the breakage in linux-next. In short testing, when there is virtually no load on the system I can not see any difference, which might change later. But I'll keep in mind that probably I'm not going to better off with the waking up of a sleeping thread. > > Regards, > Andy Thanks, Péter -- 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