| 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: <3e8340490906240916v8017770w279e7ecfab079894@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:16:18 -0400 From: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com> To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com> Subject: PI futexes - allocations required? When I was reading the futex.c code, I noticed that locking a PI mutex can apparently cause an allocation, via alloc_pi_state() and refill_pi_state_cache(). Doesn't this mean that memory allocation (and the corresponding possible IO latency) could be introduced into real-time code - the primary user of PI mutexes? Am I missing something here, or is some sort of PI mutex "prefaulting" needed to avoid allocation when taking PI locks? It would seem that the sleeps and unbounded latency that a GFP_KERNEL allocation can introduce would make these unusable for real-time code... -- 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