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  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, 15 Mar 2012 18:39:37 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
CC:	Christian Lamparter <>,,
	Linux PM mailing list <>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <>,,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Saravana Kannan <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Kay Sievers <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware_class: Move request_firmware_nowait() to workqueues

On 03/15/12 15:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 03/15/12 13:07, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 08:50:15 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> Oddly enough a work_struct was already part of the firmware_work
>>>> structure but nobody was using it. Instead of creating a new
>>>> kthread for each request_firmware_nowait() just schedule the work
>>>> on the system workqueue. This should avoid some overhead in
>>>> forking new threads when they're not strictly necessary if
>>>> workqueues are available.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <>
>>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
>>>> Cc: Kay Sievers <>
>>>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <>
>>>> ---
>>>> I saw this while looking at this problem we're having.
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that stall all other
>>> global workqueue tasks for up to 60 seconds [in worst case]?
>>> But I think we can get rid of the firmware_work work struct...
>> My understanding is that with concurrency managed workqueues when the
>> work item blocks another will be scheduled to run almost immediately. So
>> before that change by Tejun workqueues would have been a bad idea
>> because it could have blocked up to 60 second but now it should be fine
>> because that work item will just be put to sleep and another request
>> will run.
> Please read the description of system_wq in workqueue.h.
> You should have used either system_long_wq or system_nrt_wq (depending on
> what you really need).

Thanks. I think we can use system_nrt_wq then? Or maybe even the
unbounded workqueue system_unbound_wq?

Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists