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: <20071108024425.GR19691@waste.org>
Date:	Wed, 7 Nov 2007 20:44:26 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
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>
Subject: Re: is minimum udelay() not respected in preemptible SMP kernel-2.6.23?

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:20:58AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > But I think we'd be best off stashing a single bit somewhere and
> > checking it at migrate time (relatively infrequent) rather than
> > copying and zeroing out a potentially enormous affinity mask every
> > time we disable migration (often, and in fast paths). Perhaps adding
> > TASK_PINNED to the task state flags would do it?
> 
> It would need to be a count to be able to nest it.

Ahh, right. Suppose that means fattening the task struct until someone
comes up with something more clever.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/