| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080907110729.GA26079@one.firstfloor.org> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:07:29 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dipankar@...ibm.com, josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@....com, niv@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi, andi@...stfloor.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] Add a CPU_STARTING notifier (was: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation) > What about introducing a CPU_STARTING notifier call, similar to CPU_DYING: > - called with disabled interrupts > - called before interrupts are enabled > - must not sleep > - called on the new cpu. > > This might also be useful for something like kvm. I'm not sure if it's > guaranteed that hardware_enable() runs early enough. I would find that useful too. I had several cases where i had to add smp_call_function_single() with a second callback to the CPU_UP notifier, which always seemed ugly. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists