linux-kernel - Config Q?: Preempt Model & Preempt Big Kern Lock

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

Date:	Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:46:20 -0800
From:	Linda Walsh <lkml@...nx.org>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Config Q?: Preempt Model & Preempt Big Kern Lock

Not big deal, just some config-validity questions regarding
i386 preemption models and preemption of the big-kern lock.
I.e. the relevant options are:

(PM) "Preemption model", there are 3 choices (i386):
      (none) No Forced Preemption (Server)
      (vol) Voluntary Preempt (Desktop)
      (full) Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)
(PBL) "Preempt The Big Kernel Lock" (hint: use Y for desktop, else N)

===
Are these all "valid" config states?  Should they all be valid?

I.e., does it make sense to allow "PM==none && PBL==T" ?
Does it makes sense to allow "(PM==full) && PBL==F" ?

Is the issue of big-kernel-lock preemption of major consequence
these days, or should it work in all cases?  Are there cases
where one might want PBL==F?  Would they be limited to the
"PM=none" case?

Is this the right place or way to ask such questions, or to
get information?

In asking a similar information question, it seems that it
was preferred that a bug be filed.  Is that the case here?

Thanks,
Lin

-
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/