| 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: <4C1B2CE0.3040400@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:22:56 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>, mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.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 06/18/2010 10:03 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Converting to kthread is usually okay to do but getting the > kthread_stop() and memory barriers right can be pain in the ass, so > having a easier wrapper there would be pretty helpful. Thinking more about it the interface could be pretty similar to wq. The only qualm I have w/ wq is that it requires allowing works to be freed once execution starts, which is sometimes convenient but a major pain to implement correctly w/ flushing, requeueing and all. Such complexities end up visible to the users too through quirkiness in flush semantics. But, other than that, wrapping kthread in a prettier outfit for cases which require a dedicated thread and don't wanna bother with kthread directly should only take few hundred lines of code. 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