linux-kernel - Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C1C8A18.2030709@kernel.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:12:56 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	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

Hello,

On 06/19/2010 11:08 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to just put on front. The individual
> items shouldn't take that long, right?
> 
> (in fact I have an older patch for work queues which implemented
> that) 

Well, in general, queueing to execution latency should be fairly low
especially if it's put at the front of the queue but well it's nothing
with any kind of guarantee.

>> If there are multiple of such use cases, it would make sense to create
>> a prioritized worker pools along with prioritized per-cpu queues but
>> if there are only a few of them, I think it makes more sense to use
>> dedicated threads for them.  Do those threads need to be per-cpu?
> 
> Not strictly, although it might be useful on a error flood when
> a whole DIMM goes bad.

I'm currently writing a kthread wrapper which basically provides
similar interface to wq but guarantees binding to a specific thread
which can be RT of course.  If single threadedness is acceptable, I
think this would render better behavior.  What do you think?

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/