Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:30:49 -0400 | From | Theodore Ts'o <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Latency Tracer, voluntary-preempt-2.6.8-rc4-O6 |
| |
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:19:58AM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > I doubt SHA_CODE_SIZE will make a sufficient difference to avoid the > > latency problems. What we would need to do is to change the code so > > that the rekey operation in __check_and_rekey takes place in a > > workqueue. Say, something like this (warning, I haven't tested this > > patch; if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces): > > > > Tested, works for me. This should probably be pushed upstream, as well > as added to -P5, correct? Is there any disadvantage to doing it this > way?
Great, I will be pushing this upstream very shortly.
- Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |