linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: introduce add_wait_queue_exclusive

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140320184904.GA10194@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:49:04 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Peng Tao <bergwolf@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: introduce add_wait_queue_exclusive_head

On 03/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:44:29PM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> > The original reason for l_wait_event() not using TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > is to avoid the load on the server continually being "num_service_threads"
> > regardless of whether they are actually doing something or not.  We
> > added various cases for periodic wakeups and such afterward.
>
> Hmm, maybe we should finally do the TASK_IDLE thing;
>
>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/12/710

Agreed. And if we are not going to expose TASK_IDLE bit in /proc/ (I think
we should not) the patch should be really trivial.

Oleg.

--
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/