linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq_ondemand.c: don't use _WORK

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8561.1171884827@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:33:47 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq_ondemand.c: don't use _WORK_NAR 

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:

> Looks like dbs_timer() is very careful wrt per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info),
> and it doesn't need the help of WORK_STRUCT_NOAUTOREL.

Actually, I think my problem with this was dbs_info->sample_type, but reading
it again, I'm not sure that it's actually a problem as the work function will
probably not ever be executing on two or more CPUs simultaneously because of
the deferral time involved.

So, your patch is probably fair enough.  Certainly, deletion isn't a problem.

Acked-By: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
-
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/