| 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: <1276867493.1875.17.camel@laptop> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:24:53 +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 15:23 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:12:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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. > > So you could just preallocate the bits instead ? You mean the bits in your function array? Those are limited to 32 and you'd need a secondary lookup to match them to your data object, not very useful. -- 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