lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:06:05 -0400 From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org Cc: lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de, len.brown@...el.com, mingo@...e.hu, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, tglx@...utronix.de, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, yakui.zhao@...el.com, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com Subject: Re: [patch for 2.6.30 2/2] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: avoid cross-CPU interrupts On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:17:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> > > In drv_read(), check to see whether we can run the rdmsr() on the current > CPU. If so, do that. So smp_call_function_single() can avoid the IPI. Wouldn't it be a better to make smp_call_function_single do this check itself, so all callers benefit from this optimisation? *looks* Wait, won't this already be caught by this code in smp_call_function_single() ? 286 this_cpu = get_cpu(); ... 291 if (cpu == this_cpu) { 292 local_irq_save(flags); 293 func(info); 294 local_irq_restore(flags); 295 } else { Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists