linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] kmod: Cleanups, simplifications, and make isolation friendly v3

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: <20150728180114.GJ5322@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:01:14 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kmod: Cleanups, simplifications, and make isolation
 friendly v3

Hello, Frederic.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:05:41PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > IMHO, system_wq should be fine and if it isn't turning off numa
> > affinity or raising max worker limit later is pretty trivial.
> 
> That's what I think too. How many workers system_unbound_wq can handle? If kmod

256 by default.

> raises very high numbers of threads in parallel like > 500, I think that would be
> a problem on its own anyway.

I'm having hard time to see how limit of 256 would be a problem.  If
it becomes one, let's deal with it then.

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/