| 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: Sun, 23 May 2010 11:24:58 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> CC: peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET sched/core] sched: prepare for cmwq Hello, On 05/23/2010 11:13 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > ... which is then used for the concurrency-managed > workqueue feature, which is then used for a BTRFS speedup, > right? > > ( If that's not the plan then color me confused :) Yeap, you're officially confused. :-) It doesn't have much to do with btrfs at this point and performance test result was posted earlier this year (on your request too) where it performed quite similarly to the workqueue code on the favorable side while providing much easier API for its users. The whole thing has been sitting in my queue for months now blocked on these scheduler changes. I've requested multiple times to push this forward on at least a separate sched devel branch and make incremental changes from there if scheduler side is not satisfactory so that the whole code base can be tested in wider scope and fix and improvement history can be kept in git, about which you always have had a pretty strong opinion about. There is no outstanding major opposition to cmwq itself (fscache conversion needs more performance testing tho). The whole thing is blocked on these scheduler changes. What's up? 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists