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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:23:22 +0400 From: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, matthew.wilcox@...com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues Hello! > again, there is no reason why this couldnt be done in a hardirq context. > If a hardirq preempts another hardirq and the first hardirq already > processes the 'softnet work', you dont do it from the second one but > queue it with the first one. (into the already existing > sd->completion_queue for tx work or queue->poll_list for rx work) It > would be a simple additional flag in softnet_data. This is kind of obvious. It is just description of softnet. > once we forget about 'hardirq contexts run with irqs disabled', _there > is just no technological point for softirqs_. They are an unnecessary > abstraction! The first paragraph describes softirq, nothing else. I have already understood when you say "technological", you mean "terminological". "softirq" is just a term to describe "softnet" workflow in an intelligible way. Call it from inside irq handler, rather than in irq_exit, this changes _NOTHING_. I understood that you describe original pre-historic softnet model. You just want to replace softirq run at irq_exit with an explicit soft{net,scsi,whatever}_call, which could execute immediately or can be queued for later. I hope I am wrong, because this is... mmm... not a progress. > -rt, local_bh_disable() is a NOP there. How is it done? ... > Are we talking about the very same thing perhaps, just from a different > angle? ;-) When talking about softnet, yes. No, when talking about "implementing non-reentrancy via another, more flexible mechanism". We are not on the same page. I am afraid even the books are different. :-) I need to think about this and really read -rt code, this sounds so crazy that it can be even correct. Timeout, we are far out of topic anyway. Alexey - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists