linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4 v3] smp_call_function

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]

Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:15:21 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu, jaxboe@...ionio.com,
	npiggin@...il.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 v3] smp_call_function_many issues from review

On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 13:27 -0600, Milton Miller wrote:
> Picking up this thread from the beginning of Feburary,  I updated
> the comments in 3 and 4 based on Paul's review.  I have inserted
> my proposed alternative to Paul's additional patch as patch 2,
> and tweaked the changelog on 1.
> 
> [PATCH 1/4 v3] call_function_many: fix list delete vs add race
> [PATCH 2/4 v3] call_function_many: add missing ordering
> [PATCH 3/4 v3] smp_call_function_many: handle concurrent clearing of mask
> [PATCH 4/4 v3] smp_call_function_interrupt: use typedef and %pf
> 
> Peter Z acked a prior version of patch 1, and Mike Galbraith has
> done some stress testing on the combinaton of 1,3,4, and Paul's patch.

I beat hell out of all v2 + Paul's ordering patch.  These are verified
to have fixed a nasty enterprise cluster problem.

> The prior posting of this series is available here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/522021/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/522031/
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129654439817236&w=2
> 
> And Paul's additional patch from review was here
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/525891/
> 
> Looking forward, I would suggest 1 and 2 are required for stable, 3 may
> be suitable..

Problematic clusters say 3 is most excellent stable material.

	-Mike

--
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/