Re: [patch] Latency Tracer, voluntary-preempt-2.6.8-rc4-O6

[Lee Revell]

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
way?

Lee  

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/