| 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: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:49:13 +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, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>, davem <davem@...emloft.net>, paulus <paulus@...ba.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work -v2 On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 21:39 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 21:30 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what all the logic for entry enqueued by someone > > else is good for? Is that for the case you don't have enough > > entries preallocated and you share them with someone else? > > > > Normally if the sharing is per cpu that would be difficult > > to recover from because if it's due to a nest situation (for example) > > you would deadlock. > > > > For me it would seem simpler to simply not share. > > perf has two different reasons to for the callback, what I do is set the > state and enqueue, if its already enqueued the pending callback will > handle both. > > Its cheaper than having two callback structures per event. > > We can expose the claim/enqueue thing separately so that users can > choose. Also, its possible the PMI hits again before the IRQ callback has a chance to happen. -- 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