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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 20:01:44 -0800 From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> To: "muraliraja.muniraju" <muraliraja.muniraju@...rik.com> Cc: Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re [PATCH] Adding multiple workers to the loop device. On 2020-01-21 12:10, muraliraja.muniraju wrote: > + for (i = 0; i < lo->num_loop_workers; i++) { > + kthread_init_worker(&(lo->workers[i])); > + lo->worker_tasks[i] = kthread_run( > + loop_kthread_worker_fn, &(lo->workers[i]), > + "loop%d(%d)", lo->lo_number, i); > + if (IS_ERR((lo->worker_tasks[i]))) > + goto err; > + set_user_nice(lo->worker_tasks[i], MIN_NICE); > + } Unless if there is a really good reason, the workqueue mechanism should be used instead of creating kthreads. And again unless if there is a really good reason, one of the system workqueues (e.g. system_wq) should be used instead of creating dedicated workqueues. Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists