linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:44:55 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock


* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> The patch description is simply untrue.  It does affect how wq 
> behaves under heavy CPU load.  The effect might be perfectly okay 
> but more likely it will result in subtle suboptimal behaviors under 
> certain load situations which would be difficult to characterize 
> and track down.  Again, the trade off (mostly killing of 
> ttwu_local) could be okay but you can't get away with just claiming 
> "there's no harm".

Well, either it can be measured or not. If you can suggest a specific 
testing method to Thomas, please do.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/