Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2005 11:21:49 +0200 (CEST) | From | root@smtp ... |
| |
by smtp.nexlab.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E1AFA5A
for <chiakotay@nexlab.it>; Tue, 24 May 2005 06:39:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
id S261346AbVEXDUv (ORCPT <rfc822;chiakotay@nexlab.it>);
Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:51 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261338AbVEXDUv
(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:51 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:12499 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com")
by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261324AbVEXDUi (ORCPT
<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:38 -0400
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4O3KR8X000397;
Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:27 -0400
Received: from mail.boston.redhat.com (mail.boston.redhat.com [172.16.76.12])
by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4O3KRO05468;
Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:27 -0400
Received: from thoron.boston.redhat.com (thoron.boston.redhat.com [172.16.80.63])
by mail.boston.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4O3KQpW029577;
Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:26 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com> X-X-Sender: jmorris@thoron.boston.redhat.com
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, <davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [CRYPTO]: Only reschedule if !in_atomic()
In-Reply-To: <20050524024318.GB29242@gondor.apana.org.au>
Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.44.0505232319450.1507-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:31:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Are you sure it's actually needed? Have significant scheduling latencies > > actually been observed? > > I certainly don't have any problems with removing the yield altogether. > > > Bear in mind that anyone who cares a lot about latency will be running > > CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, in which case the whole thing is redundant anyway. > > I generally take the position that if we're going to put a scheduling point > > into a non-premept kernel then it'd better be for a pretty bad latency > > point - more than 10 milliseconds, say. > > The crypt() function can easily take more than 10 milliseconds with > a large enough buffer. > > James & Dave, do you have any opinions on this?
a) remove the scheudling point and see if anyone complains b) if so, add a flag
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com>
- 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/
- 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/
| |