netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: wireless: move regulatory timeout work to power efficient workqueue

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: <20140205091742.GA1978@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:17:42 +0100
From:	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Shaibal Dutta <shaibal.dutta@...adcom.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: wireless: move regulatory timeout work to power
 efficient workqueue

Hi

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:35:31AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
> > "system_power_efficient_wq", but maybe it'd be better to expose a
> > function as an API rather than the wq struct?
> > 
> > Something like
> > 
> > scheduled_delayed_work_pwr_efficient(...)?
> 
> While there are some benefits to using dedicated functions for
> specific workqueues, I don't think it brings enough benefits to
> justify adding dedicated API and am unlikely to add new ones.

What are selection criteria when choosing between system_wq or
system_power_efficient_wq on drivers ? IOW if I would be writing
a new driver which workqueue should I use and when ?

I think that should be driver independent, at least for most of drivers.
If system have to run in low power mode, system_power_efficient_wq
should be chosen automatically by schedule_work(), otherwise when high
performance is more important schedule_work() should use system_wq.

Stanislaw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html