| 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: <20100624112340.GA13502@elte.hu> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:23:40 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, "H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:08 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > And I really want hardirq context for perf callbacks, some code actually > > > relies on it (I used to have the fallback in the timer softirq and that > > > > Surely that could be fixed? *requiring* hard irq context sounds weird. > > possibly, but there is no reason what so ever to use softirq here. > > > > broke thing at some point). > > > > I have one case that needs to sleep (but only when interrupting user code) > > They key thing in it really is to switch stacks back to process. > > softirq can't sleep either, you need a trampoline anyway. What might make sense is to offer two types of callbacks: one that is immediate whenever an event triggers - and another that is sleepable and is executed from process context. Having an intermediate softirq level might be over-design indeed. Thanks, Ingo -- 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