linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: workqueues tree build failure

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:	Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:42:27 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
CC:	Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>,
	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ia.com>,
	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>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: workqueues tree build failure

Hello,

11/27/2009 05:37 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> Sounds like it should be using bottom half tasklet not workqueue.
>> Tasklet is exactly designed to handle situations like this.  Is there
>> any reason tasklet can't be used?
> 
> Right now the h/w accessing code is using mutex.  I'm not sure whether
> the deeper part might sleep, though...

Ah... I see.  Using mutex from a handler where response time is
critical is strange tho.  Anyways, I don't really think singlethread
will satisfy the timing requirement under loaded conditions.  IMHO,
update locking and using tasklets would be the best.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/