Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:43:18 +1000
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
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: <20050524024318.GB29242@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <200505232300.j4NN07lE012726@hera.kernel.org> <20050523162806.0e70ae4f.akpm@osdl.org> <20050524022106.GA29081@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050523193116.62844826.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050523193116.62844826.akpm@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1189
Lines: 29

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?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/