linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160330170419.GG7822@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:04:19 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Michael Rapoport <RAPOPORT@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Hello,

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0200, Michael Rapoport wrote:
> I did some performance evaluation of different threading models in vhost, 
> and in most tests replacing vhost kthread's with workqueues degrades the 
> performance. Moreover, having thread management inside the vhost provides 

There really shouldn't be any difference when using unbound
workqueues.  workqueue becomes a convenience thing which manages
worker pools and there shouldn't be any difference between workqueue
workers and kthreads in terms of behavior.

> opportunity for optimization, at least for some workloads...

What sort of optimizations are we talking about?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun