linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 07/10] io_uring: switch to kernel

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]

Date:   Tue, 23 Nov 2021 15:23:13 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     michael.christie@...cle.com
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
        vverma@...italocean.com, hdanton@...a.com, hch@...radead.org,
        stefanha@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com,
        sgarzare@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 07/10] io_uring: switch to kernel_worker

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:47:28AM -0600, michael.christie@...cle.com wrote:
> On 11/22/21 8:20 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 11/22/21 3:02 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 11:17:11AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On 11/21/21 10:49 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
> >>>> Convert io_uring and io-wq to use kernel_worker.
> >>>
> >>> I don't like the kernel_worker name, that implies it's always giving you
> >>> a kernel thread or kthread. That's not the io_uring use case, it's
> >>> really just a thread off the original task that just happens to never
> >>> exit to userspace.
> >>>
> >>> Can we do a better name? At least io_thread doesn't imply that.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I had thought about that as well and at first had kernel_uworker()
> >> locally but wasn't convinced. Maybe we should just make it
> >> create_user_worker()?
> > 
> > That's better, or maybe even create_user_inkernel_thread() or something?
> > Pretty long, though... I'd be fine with create_user_worker().
> > 
> 
> Ok, I'll do:
> 
> create_user_worker()
> start_user_worker()
> 
> since you guys agree. It will also match the PF flag naming.
> 
> I'll also add more details to the commit message you requested.

Thanks!