linux-kernel - Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0611172318180.8754-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:33:45 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...esys.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	<manfred@...orfullife.com>, <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > Perhaps a better approach to the initialization problem would be to assume 
> > that either:
> > 
> >     1.  The srcu_struct will be initialized before it is used, or
> > 
> >     2.  When it is used before initialization, the system is running
> > 	only one thread.
> 
> Are these assumptions valid?  If so, they would indeed simplify things
> a bit.

I don't know.  Maybe Andrew can tell us -- is it true that the kernel runs 
only one thread up through the time the core_initcalls are finished?

If not, can we create another initcall level that is guaranteed to run 
before any threads are spawned?

> For the moment, I cheaped out and used a mutex_trylock.  If this can block,
> I will need to add a separate spinlock to guard per_cpu_ref allocation.

I haven't looked at your revised patch yet...  But it's important to keep 
things as simple as possible.

> Hmmm...  How to test this?  Time for the wrapper around alloc_percpu()
> that randomly fails, I guess.  ;-)

Do you really want things to continue in a highly degraded mode when 
percpu allocation fails?  Maybe it would be better just to pass the 
failure back to the caller.

Alan Stern

-
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/