linux-kernel - Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs

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:	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:57:57 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net,
	tglx@...utronix.de, me@...ipebalbi.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	sameo@...nedhand.com
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:46:47 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:19:31 +0100
> 
> > I state that every !IRQF_DISABLED usage is a bug, either due to broken
> > hardware or broken drivers.
> 
> We'll send you the bill to have everyone's hardware
> replaced :-)

yes, but with what?

No matter how fast all our interrupt handlers are, running them with
local interrupts disabled has to worsen the worst-case interrupt
latency.

I don't see how removing !IRQF_DISABLED improves the kernel - in fact
there's a latency argument for making !IRQF_DISABLED the default.
--
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/