linux-kernel - Re: posix-cpu-timers revamp

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:	Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:42:40 -0700
From:	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: posix-cpu-timers revamp

On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 19:07 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > To deal with the need for bookkeeping with multiple threads in the SMP
> > case (where there isn't a per-cpu structure until it's needed), I'll
> > allocate the per-cpu structure in __exit_signal() where the relevant
> > fields are updated.  I'll also allocate it where I do now, in
> > do_setitimer(), when needed.  The allocation will be a "return 0" for UP
> > and a call to "thread_group_times_alloc_smp()" (which lives in sched.c)
> > for SMP.
> 
> By do_setitimer, you mean set_process_cpu_timer and posix_cpu_timer_set.

And another quick note:  It appears that with the "allocate percpu
storage in copy_signal CLONE_THREAD case" mechanism, I don't need to
worry about allocating it anywhere else.  If I need it (which is only in
the case of multiple threads and an interval timer) then I'll have it
because it was allocated with the second thread.  So I just eliminate
the allocation in do_setitimer() entirely.
-- 
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Google, Inc.

--
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/