linux-kernel - Re: workqueue thing

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]

Message-ID: <1261557674.4937.117.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:41:14 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, awalls@...ix.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com, johannes@...solutions.net,
	andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: workqueue thing

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 01:13 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 01:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > One key thing i havent seen in this discussion are actual measurements. I
> > think a lot could be decided by simply testing this patch-set, by looking at
> > the hard numbers: how much faster (or slower) did a particular key workload
> > get before/after these patches.
> 
> We are dealing with situations where drivers are using workqueues to 
> provide a sleep-able context, and trying to solve problems related to that.

So why are threaded interrupts not considered? Isn't the typical atomic
context of drivers the IRQ handler?

--
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/