linux-kernel - Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 5 Jul 2014 21:55:42 -0700
From:	Austin Schuh <austin@...oton-tech.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Austin Schuh wrote:
>> I think I might have an answer for my own question, but I would
>> appreciate someone else to double check.  If list_empty erroneously
>> returns that there is work to do when there isn't work to do, we wake
>> up an extra worker which then goes back to sleep.  Not a big loss.  If
>> list_empty erroneously returns that there isn't work to do when there
>> is, this should only be because someone is modifying the work list.
>> When they finish, as far as I can tell, all callers then check to see
>> if a worker needs to be started up, and start one.
>
> Precisely.

A comment there when you put together a polished patch for inclusion
would be awesome.  I'm assuming that you will put the patch together?
--
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/