linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3

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, 10 Oct 2010 21:16:40 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	pedrib@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3

> Not if in_interrupt is set though?
> +       if (per_cpu(io_wq_cpu, cpu) == current && !in_interrupt()) {
> 
> What I am missing here?

The interrupt doesn't block on the task.

Actually most likely that check isn't needed anyways because
that should not happen, was just pure paranoia from my side.

> 
> (And assume there is only 1 CPU too for worst case behaviour, presumably.)

One per process, previously it was always one per CPU.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/