Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:31:16 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
       davem@davemloft.net, jmorris@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [CRYPTO]: Only reschedule if !in_atomic()
Message-Id: <20050523193116.62844826.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050524022106.GA29081@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <200505232300.j4NN07lE012726@hera.kernel.org>
	<20050523162806.0e70ae4f.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20050524022106.GA29081@gondor.apana.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 866
Lines: 19

Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should code this into the crypto API instead? For instance,
>  we can have a tfm flag that says whether we can sleep or not.

Are you sure it's actually needed? Have significant scheduling latencies
actually been observed?

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.

-
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/