linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perf/core] perf: Per-pmu-per-cpu contexts

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: <1284133594.402.94.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:46:34 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, paulus@...ba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	eranian@...glemail.com, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com,
	robert.richter@....com, ming.m.lin@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...e.hu, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] perf: Per-pmu-per-cpu contexts

On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 08:37 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So, you say below that it works because synchronize_srcu(), that
> > waits for qs after touching pmus, implies synchronize_sched(), right?
> 
> Ook...  My current plans to fold SRCU into TREE_RCU would invalidate
> this assumption.
> 
> Maybe we need some sort of primitive that concurrently waits for
> multiple types of RCU grace periods? 

Nah, but I was thinking that any kind of preemptible rcu sync would
imply a sched rcu sync.

If not strictly implied I'd have no problem simply writing:

  synchronize_rcu_sched();
  synchronize_srcu();


--
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/