linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] NVMe: Avoid interrupt disable during queue init.

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:	Fri, 22 May 2015 00:44:53 +0530
From:	Parav Pandit <parav.pandit@...gotech.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NVMe: Avoid interrupt disable during queue init.

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 06:12 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>
>> Avoid diabling interrupt and holding q_lock for the queue
>> which is just getting initialized.
>>
>> With this change, online_queues is also incremented without
>> lock during queue setup stage.
>> if Power management nvme_suspend() kicks in during queue setup time,
>> per nvmeq based q_lock spinlock cannot protect device wide
>> online_queues variable anyway.
>
>
> Seems fairly pointless, it's not like it's a hot path...
>
I didn't follow your comments.
Do you mean we should still hold the lock, even if its not needed?

I meant to say in above patch/comment that holding q_lock is not
necessary in this path. So I removed it.

> --
> Jens Axboe
>
--
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/