linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9 V3] workqueue: add POOL_MANAGING

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: <503ED232.3010501@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:38:42 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9 V3] workqueue: add POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS

On 08/30/2012 02:21 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:51:54AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> When hotplug happens, the plug code will also grab the manager_mutex,
>> it will break too_many_workers()'s assumption, and make too_many_workers()
>> ugly(kick the timer wrongly, no found bug).
>>
>> To avoid assumption-coruption, we add the original POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS back.
> 
> I don't think we're gaining anything with this and I'd like to confine
> management state within the mutex only.  If too_many_workers() firing
> spuriously while CPU up/down is in progress, just add a comment
> explaining why it's a non-problem

OK, I drop this patch, Could you add the comment, I'm not good at English.

> (actual worker management never
> happens while cpu up/down holds manager positions).
> 

I don't agree this claim. It happens "rarely", not "never", otherwise I missed something.


Thanks,
Lai
--
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/