| 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: <4C18D420.8090008@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:39:44 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> 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 06/16/2010 03:37 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: >> 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. Oh yeah, if you have WQ_SINGLE_CPU + max inflight of 1, works on the wq are fully ordered. -- 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