linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Allow preemption during lazy mmu updates

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:15:50 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow preemption during lazy mmu updates

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 16:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>   
>>>  kernel/sched.c                     |    2 -
>>>       
>> Needs the ack of ... oh, never mind - this one is fine i guess ;-)
>>     
>
> Ah, about that. This new preemption hook has slightly different
> requirements than the current preempt-notifiers have (hence the new
> hook), I was wondering if KVM (afaik currently the only preempt-notifier
> consumer) could live with these requirements.
>
> That is, could these be merged?
>   

What are the slight differences in requirements?

KVM wants to run in non-preemptible, interrupts-enabled context.


-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
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/