| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4C17CA0C.80301@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:44:28 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> CC: mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, johannes@...solutions.net, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue Hello, On 06/15/2010 08:40 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> == Benefits >> >> * Less to worry about causing deadlocks around execution resources. >> >> * Far fewer number of kthreads. >> >> * More flexibility without runtime overhead. >> >> * As concurrency is no longer a problem, workloads which needed >> separate mechanisms can now use generic workqueue instead. This >> easy access to concurrency also allows stuff which wasn't worth >> implementing a dedicated mechanism for but still needed flexible >> concurrency. > > Start the whole with the above? Otherwise people get tired of reading > before finding out what the point of the exercise is? Yeah, maybe that would have been better. I was going for a nice closing but who cares about closing if the opening is boring. I'll reorder on the next round. 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