linux-kernel - Re: is minimum udelay() not respected in preemptible SMP kernel-2.6.23?

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: <1194513081.6289.130.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:11:21 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: is minimum udelay() not respected in preemptible SMP
	kernel-2.6.23?

On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 18:20 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:

>  This and other cases
> (lots of per_cpu users, IIRC) actually want a migrate_disable() which
> is a proper subset. 

The disadvantage of migrate_disable() is that it complicates the
load-balancer but more importantly, that it does bring a form of
latencies with it that are hard to measure. Using preempt_disable() for
these current per-cpu users basically forces them to keep it short.

   Which is a GOOD (tm) thing.

If we go overboard with this migrate_disable() stuff we can end up with
a very hard to analyse system that sporadically does weird stuff.

So, please, don't start that again.

Also see:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/23/338

-
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/