linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as early

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: <1280537290.2682.19.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:48:10 -0700
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as
 early_initcall()

On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:57:37 -0700
> Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > Mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() and thus it will be initialized
> > before smp bringup. init_workqueues() registers for the hotcpu notifier
> > and thus it should cope with the processors that are brought online after
> > the workqueues are initialized.
> > 
> > x86 smp bringup code uses workqueues and uses a workaround for the
> > cold boot process (as the workqueues are initialized post smp_init()).
> > Marking init_workqueues() as early_initcall() will pave the way for
> > cleaning up this code.
> > 
> 
> I sure hope this has been tested against linux-next. 
> kernel/workqueue.c has been vastly changed and -tip doesn't know about
> that.  linux-next should include -tip and is hence a better tree to
> develop and test against.
> 
> AFAICT the main thing which needs checking is that the new
> init_workqueues() doesn't do anything which requires that
> sched_init_smp() has been executed.
> 
> The patch otherwise looks OK and killing that hack in the x86 code was
> most merciful.
> 
> for_each_gcwq_cpu(), for_each_online_gcwq_cpu() and for_each_cwq_cpu()
> make me cry.

hmm.. too many changes in linux-next.

Yes, as far as these patches are concerned, they work against linux-next
aswell. Just posted -v2 which is on top of linux-next. ia64 also had the
same issue, addressed in -v2 aswell.

thanks,
suresh



--
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/