linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files

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:	Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:03:08 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	jack@...e.cz, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, eparis@...hat.com,
	john@...nmccutchan.com, rlove@...ve.org,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched
 files

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:29:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> I believe that there still are some cases.  But why would offline
> CPUs seem so iffy?  CPUs coming up execute code before they are fully
> operational, and during that time, much of the kernel views them as
> being offline.  Yet they do have to execute significant code in order
> to get themselves set up.

I'm thinking we do far too much during bringup and tear-down as it is.
But yes maybe.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/