linux-kernel - Re: Work queue questions

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: <CAOS58YPyMJrqLYno1YXUkFop9XTE8r=dCg8AsCK_Fr0yBq5ZWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:12:59 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	anish singh <anish198519851985@...il.com>
Cc:	Daniel Taylor <Daniel.Taylor@....com>,
	Deepawali Verma <dverma249@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Work queue questions

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:05 PM, anish singh
<anish198519851985@...il.com> wrote:
> Assuming single core,Is my explanation correct about concurrency?

Yes, for bound workqueues, that's correct. Concurrency management
doesn't apply to unbound ones tho. Didn't notice Deepawali's test case
either just didn't take long enough for the scheduler to interleave
the workers or is using a workqueue w/ max_active == 1. I'm afraid
this won't be a particularly productive discussion without the source
code. For more details, please read Documentation/workqueue.txt.

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/