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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87v8xpmx9n.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 12:14:04 +0106 From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de> To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com> Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v1 10/13] printk: add kthread console printers On 2022-02-08, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 20:49:20 +0106 John Ogness wrote: >> Create a kthread for each console to perform console printing. During >> normal operation (@system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING), the kthread >> printers are responsible for all printing on their respective >> consoles. > > The code becomes simpler if the kthread is replaced with a workqueue > work, given the system workers. We do not want multiple console printers blocking each other. We also would not want the consoles blocking non-printk work items for extended periods of time. So we would likely need a dedicated worker per console. I'm not convinced the code would look simpler just by changing the deferred work API. But perhaps the kernel community wants to get away from manual kthread management in general. (??) I am now pondering if there is some technical advantages to workqueues. I suppose with dedicated workers, you could still easily adjust CPU affinities and scheduling policies/priorites from userspace, like with kthreads. But is there some advantage over kthreads? John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists