linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] v4 Teach RCU that idle task is not quiscent state at boot

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, 25 Feb 2009 18:18:42 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vegard.nossum@...il.com, stable@...nel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH] v4 Teach RCU that idle task is not quiscent state at boot

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 09:12:49AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:26:45PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I wonder if you couldn't leave cpu_rq(cpu)->idle as NULL until right
> > up to the point where it actually becomes the "idle" thread? This
> > would make idle_cpu() more truthful for all other callers in early
> > boot code too. And rcupdate shouldn't need any changes (except the
> > num_online_cpus() == 1 shortcut probably remains as a nice opt).
> 
> It looked to me that the idle task initialization was moved early
> to allow interrupt handlers to see a more normal environment, but I
> could easily be confused here.

I think we might be OK. I think interrupt handlers shouldn't care
so much about whether the cpu is idle or not (and seeing !idle
here would be more accurate anyway).

--
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/