linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] Unified NMI delayed call mechanism

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: <1276866769.1875.14.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:12:49 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Unified NMI delayed call mechanism

On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 15:09 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > You generally want to pass more information along anyway, now your
> > callback function needs to go look for it. Much better to pass a
> > work_struct like thing around that is contained in the state it needs.
> 
> But how would you allocate the work queue in an NMI?
> 
> If it's only a single instance (like this bit) it can be always put
> into a per cpu variable.

Pre-allocate. For the perf-event stuff we use the perf_event allocated
at creation time. But yeah, per-cpu storage also works.
--
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/