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: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:48:10 -0700 From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:57:37 -0700 > Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote: > > > Mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() and thus it will be initialized > > before smp bringup. init_workqueues() registers for the hotcpu notifier > > and thus it should cope with the processors that are brought online after > > the workqueues are initialized. > > > > x86 smp bringup code uses workqueues and uses a workaround for the > > cold boot process (as the workqueues are initialized post smp_init()). > > Marking init_workqueues() as early_initcall() will pave the way for > > cleaning up this code. > > > > I sure hope this has been tested against linux-next. > kernel/workqueue.c has been vastly changed and -tip doesn't know about > that. linux-next should include -tip and is hence a better tree to > develop and test against. > > AFAICT the main thing which needs checking is that the new > init_workqueues() doesn't do anything which requires that > sched_init_smp() has been executed. > > The patch otherwise looks OK and killing that hack in the x86 code was > most merciful. > > for_each_gcwq_cpu(), for_each_online_gcwq_cpu() and for_each_cwq_cpu() > make me cry. hmm.. too many changes in linux-next. Yes, as far as these patches are concerned, they work against linux-next aswell. Just posted -v2 which is on top of linux-next. ia64 also had the same issue, addressed in -v2 aswell. thanks, suresh -- 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