linux-kernel - RE: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be totally bizare

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]

Message-ID: <84EA05E2CA77634C82730353CBE3A84303218F19@SAUSEXMB1.amd.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:29:01 -0500
From:	"Langsdorf, Mark" <mark.langsdorf@....com>
To:	"Ashok Raj" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
cc:	"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not
 be totally bizare

 
> before introducing the ugly recursion we did try the 
> preempt_disable() for cpufreq, and it worked for most all 
> governers with preempt_disable(), but powernowk8 called 
> set_cpus_allowed() in the callback path that threw out a 
> scheduling while in atomic BUG().
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/10/31/239

Is there some other preferred call we could be making 
instead of set_cpus_allowed() ?  We need to be able to
program the MSRs on that specific core, and as far as
I know, the only way to do that is to guarantee that
we are scheduled on that particular core.  

If there's a better way to hop to a specific core, I'll
gladly rewrite the code in question.

-Mark Langsdorf
AMD, Inc.


-
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/