| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20121225031835.GD10220@mtj.dyndns.org> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists