| 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: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:01:29 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, avi@...hat.com, johannes@...solutions.net Subject: Re: workqueue thing On 12/18/2009 5:50, Andi Kleen wrote: >> The only way something can be not cpu intensive and long 'running' is if >> it got blocked that long, and the right solution is to fix that >> contention, things should not be blocked for seconds. > > Work queue items shouldn't be blocking for seconds in the normal case, but it might > always happen in the exceptional case (e.g. handling some error condition). > In this case it would be good if the other jobs wouldn't be too > disrupted and the whole setup degrades gracefully. in addition, threads are cheap. Linux has no technical problem with running 100's of kernel threads (if not 1000s); they cost basically a task struct and a stack (2 pages) each and that's about it. making an elaborate-and-thus-fragile design to save a few kernel threads is likely a bad design direction... -- 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