linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/19] stop_machine: reimplement without using 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] stop_machine: reimplement without using workqueue

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 05:39:06 pm Tejun Heo wrote:
> stop_machine() is the only user of RT workqueue.  Reimplement it using
> kthreads directly and rip RT support from workqueue.  This is in
> preparation of concurrency managed workqueue.

Seems reasonable, but:

>  void stop_machine_destroy(void)
>  {
> +	get_online_cpus();
>  	mutex_lock(&setup_lock);

Did you test hotplug cpu after this change?  Maybe this works fine, but it's
always the one we break when we play with this code :(

Thanks!
Rusty.
--
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/