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

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:19:58AM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > 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?

Great, I will be pushing this upstream very shortly.

						- Ted
-
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/