| 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: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:28:53 -0700 From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org> 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, johannes@...solutions.net, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:45 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 06/16/2010 03:41 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: > > Any workqueue that has a thread which can be prioritized from userspace. > > As long as there is a thread it can usually be given a priority from > > userspace, so any _current_ workqueue which uses a single thread or > > multiple threads is an example of what I'm talking about. > > Eh... what's the use case for that? That's just so wrong. What do > you do after a suspend/resume cycle? Reprioritize all of them from > suspend/resume hooks? I tested your assertion about suspend/resume, and it doesn't seem to be true.. I tested workqueues with nice levels, and real time priorities on a random laptop using 2.6.31 both held their priorities across suspend to RAM and suspend to disk .. Was this change added after 2.6.31 ? Daniel -- 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