linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/3] raid5: offload stripe handle to 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: <20130731103332.GE2810@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:33:32 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	neilb@...e.de, djbw@...com
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] raid5: offload stripe handle to workqueue

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:24:34AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> stripe is the work unit actually. As I said, if I queue a work for each stripe,
> just queue_work() will make the system blast because of the pwq->pool->lock
> contention. dispatching one work has another side effect that I can't add block

Hmmm.... I see.  I'm not familiar with the code base and could be
missing something but how does the custom stripe dispatch queue
synchronize?  Doesn't that make use of a lock anyway?  If so, how
would scheduling separate work items be worse?  Also, can you please
elaborate the block plug part?

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/