linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 25/25] ipc: don't use [delayed_]work

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:	Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:18:35 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/25] ipc: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

Hello, Borislav.

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 08:32:58PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Ok, understood. I have only one question: how do you make sure
> schedule_work() is used only in cold paths?

Hot and cold are relative terms and unless someone is doing things
like invoking queue_work() from high-frequency interrupt handler, the
level of overhead from queue_work() isn't likely to matter.  The best
way to deal with such hot paths would differ depending on the
specifics of each hot path - ie. bouncing to workqueue from IRQ
handler would be better handled by threaded IRQ handlers.

At this point, especially given how all of work_pending() users are
way too cold for any of this to matter, I don't think we need to worry
about this.

> Btw, there's __cancel_delayed_work() which is not used anywhere and it
> could be deleted AFAICT.

Yeah, there are several interfaces which are being deprecated.
They'll be gone in a few cycles.

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/