linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] RT: Preemptible Function-Call-IPI Support

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]

Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:26:37 -0400
From:	"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] RT: Preemptible Function-Call-IPI Support

>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at  5:25 AM, in message <20070731092521.GA16177@...e.hu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: 


> as far as the prioritization of function calls goes, _that_ makes sense, 
> but it should not be a separate API but should be done to our normal 
> workqueue APIs. That not only extends the effects of priorities to all 
> current workqueue using kernel subsystems, but also keeps the API more 
> unified. We really dont want to have too many -rt specific APIs.

I just took a look at the workqueue code .  There are two immediate problems that I see:

1) cpu_workqueue_struct->lock is a spinlock_t and will need to become a raw_spinlock_t

2) The lock is held for the duration of the execution of workqueue items.  We will need to revamp this such that new workqueue items can still be queued even while executing others.

Are these acceptable changes?  If so, I will put together a prototype based around this concept.

Regards,
-Greg




-
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/