linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

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: <20090126221729.GA10215@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:17:29 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, travis@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
	davej@...hat.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.


* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> But "[PATCH 1/3] work_on_cpu: dont try to get_online_cpus() in 
> work_on_cpu." removes get_online_cpus/put_online_cpus, this means the 
> work can run on the wrong CPU anyway. Or work_on_cpu() can hang forever 
> if CPU has already gone away before queue_work_on().
> 
> Confused.

The idea was to require work_on_cpu() users to be CPU hotplug-safe. But 
... Rusty pointed it out in the past that this might be fragile, and we 
could put back the get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() calls.

Rusty, what do you think?

	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/