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

Lee Revell
2004-08-19T11:20:12Z

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