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: <20150805171057.GA20238@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:10:57 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	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

On 07/27, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> Hence those two debatable changes:
>
> _ We would like to use generic workqueues. System unbound workqueues are
>   a very good candidate but they are not wide affine, only node affine.
>   Now probably a node is enough to perform many parallel kmod jobs.
>
> _ We would like to remove the wait_for_helper kernel thread (UMH_WAIT_PROC
>   handler) to use the workqueue. It means that if the workqueue blocks,
>   and no other worker can take pending kmod request, we can be screwed.
>   Now if we have 512 threads, this should be enough.

I think this series is fine. Feel free to add my reviewed-by.

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/