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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:27:05 +0200 From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> To: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> Cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, james.bottomley@...e.de, markgross@...gnar.org, mgross@...ux.intel.com, "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Javier Cardona <javier@...ybit.com>, Jouni Malinen <j@...fi>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@...il.com>, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@...ia.com>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mac80211: make max_network_latency notifier atomic safe On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 14:16 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > That was also my first idea, but then I thought about qos and thought > atomic notification are necessary. > Do you see any value in having atomic notification? > > I have the following situation before my eyes: > > Driver A gets an interrupt and needs (to service that > interrupt) the cpu to guarantee a latency of X because the > device is a bit icky. > > Now, in that situation, if we don't immediately (without scheduling in > between) notify the system to be in that latency-mode the driver won't > function properly. Is this a realistic scene? > > At the moment we only have process context notification and only 2 > listeners. > > I think providing for atomic as well as "relaxed" notification could be > useful. > > If atomic notification is deemed unnecessary, I have no > problems to just use schedule_work() in update request. > Anyway, it is probably best to split this. I.e. first make > update_request callable from atomic contexts with doing the > schedule_work in update_request and then > as an add on provide for constraints_objects with atomic notifications. Well I remember http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/979935 where Mark renamed things to "request" which seems to imply to me more of a "please do this" than "I NEED IT NOW!!!!!". johannes -- 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