linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix bug in AMD per-cpu initialization

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: <bd4cb8901003230812s777fcd77x6ffff63123039070@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:12:39 +0100
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo <mingo@...e.hu>,
	paulus@...ba.org, davem@...emloft.net, fweisbec@...il.com,
	robert.richter@....com, perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net,
	eranian@...il.com, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix bug in AMD per-cpu initialization

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> What's the point of CPU_ONLINE vs. CPU_STARTING if you're saying the
>> former is never right? Why not move CPU_ONLINE to the right place and
>> drop CPU_STARTING?
>
> Its right for a lot of things, just not for perf, we need to be ready
> and done by the time the cpu starts scheduling.
>
You mean they need to wait until after the cpu starts scheduling?
As opposed to being called just before it starts scheduling.
--
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/