linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs

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: <20061213194332.GA29185@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:43:32 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs


* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:

> In addition the cases I can think of allowed_affinity is the wrong 
> name.  suggested_affinity sounds like what you are trying to implement 
> and when it is merely a suggestion and not a hard limit it doesn't 
> make sense to export like this.

well, there are interrupts that must be tied to a single CPU and must 
never be moved away. For example per-CPU clock-events-source interrupts 
are such. So allowed_affinity very much exists.

also there might be hardware that can only route a given IRQ to a subset 
of CPUs. While setting set_affinity allows the irqbalance-daemon to 
'probe' this mask, it's a far from optimal API.

	Ingo
-
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/