Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261346AbVEXDUv (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261338AbVEXDUv (ORCPT ); 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 ); Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:26 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@thoron.boston.redhat.com To: Herbert Xu cc: Andrew Morton , , , Subject: Re: [CRYPTO]: Only reschedule if !in_atomic() In-Reply-To: <20050524024318.GB29242@gondor.apana.org.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1176 Lines: 36 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 - 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/