linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] writeback: replace custom worker pool implementation with unbound workqueue

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: <CAOS58YMop8+TnCGK2+SH52WNyK011vP0BWu3XENjrGt9xks32w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:28:24 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	axboe@...nel.dk, laijs@...fujitsu.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] writeback: replace custom worker pool implementation
 with unbound workqueue

Hello, Jan.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>   Well, but what you often get is just output of sysrq-w, or sysrq-t, or
> splat from scheduler about stuck task. You often don't have the comfort of
> tracing... Can't we somehow change 'comm' of the task when it starts
> processing work of some bdi?

You sure can but I'd prefer not to do that. If you wanna do it
properly, you have to grab task lock every time a work item starts
execution. I'm not sure how beneficial having the block device
identifier would be. Backtrace would be there the same. Is identifying
the block device that important?

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/