[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120309212049.GD24890@google.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:20:49 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Elly Jones <ellyjones@...omium.org>,
Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>,
Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: workqueues and percpu (was: [PATCH] dm: remake of the verity
target)
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:15:12PM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> In this case, I need the per-cpu data for the duration of calculating
> a cryptographics hash on a 4K page of data. That's a long time to disable
> pre-emption.
How long are we talking about? Tens of microsecs, tens of millisecs?
> I could fix the bug temporarily by adding get/put for the per_cpu data
> but would that be acceptable? I'm not sure what the OK limit is for how
> long one can disable preemption. An alternative fix would be not allow
> CONFIG_VERITY when CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU. Once workqueues are fixed, I could
> remove that restriction.
I think the right thing to do for now is to add cpu hotplug notifier
and do flush_work_sync() on the work item. We can later move that
logic into workqueue and remove it from crypto.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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