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: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:37:48 +0200 From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 20:25 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > cmwq extends workqueue with focus on the following goals. > > * Workqueue is already very widely used. Maintain compatibility with > the current API while removing limitations of the current > implementation. ... > As multiple execution contexts are available for each wq, deadlocks > around execution contexts is much harder to create. The default > workqueue, system_wq, has maximum concurrency level of 256 and unless > there is a use case which can result in a dependency loop involving > more than 254 workers, it won't deadlock. I see a lot of stuff about the current limitations etc., but nothing about code that actually _relies_ on the synchronisation properties of the current wqs. We talked about that a long time ago, is it still guaranteed that a single-threaded wq will serialise all work put onto it? It needs to be, but I don't see you explicitly mentioning it. johannes -- 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