[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 Tue, 2004-08-17 at 15:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:48:26AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > + return nbytes;
> > > +
> >
> > since this effectively disables the random driver i cannot add it to the
> > patch.
> 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


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:0.296 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site