linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Generic smp_call_function(), improvements, and smp_call_function

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080321095343.GA21409@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:53:43 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de, paulus@...ba.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Generic smp_call_function(), improvements, and
	smp_call_function_single()


* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:

> The patch series is also available in the 'generic-ipi' branch from
> 
> git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git
> 
> and the 'io-cpu-affinity' branch is directly based on this.

i'm still wondering about the following fundamental bit: why not use per 
CPU kernel threads? That way you get a fast (lockless) IPI "for free" as 
SMP wakeups already do this.

smp_call_function() is quirky and has deep limitations on atomicity, 
etc., so we are moving away from it and should not base more 
functionality on it.

	Ingo
--
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/