[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.219 / U:2.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site