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, 20 Apr 2012 16:18:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Subject: Re: [patch 00/18] SMP: Boot and CPU hotplug refactoring - Part 1 On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > This first part moves the idle thread management for non-boot cpus > > into the core. fork_idle() is called in a workqueue as it is > > implemented in a few architectures already. This is necessary when not > > all cpus are brought up by the early boot code as otherwise we would > > take a ref on the user task VM of the thread which brings the cpu up > > via the sysfs interface. > > > > > Do you have a git tree where you have made these patches available? > That would be pretty useful, so that we can build on whatever you have Not yet, but I'll stick that into a tip/ branch. > already done.. Myself and Nikunj had some initial design/ideas on reducing > the duplication in architecture code, related to managing the setting > of the cpu in the online mask, sending out CPU_STARTING notifiers etc > from generic code.. The whole notifier business needs a redesign as well, because we don't have a way to express proper dependencies, we add random notifier points and the teardown path is ass backwards. The whole thing wants to be a tree which can be walked in either direction and from any point. Right now we cut the trunk first and keep the single limb up with a helicopter and start dismantling it. Flat notifiers are not working for this as they do not allow a tree structure and prevent us to do things in parallel. That really needs to be completely reworked. There is also a lot of stuff which wants to be moved into the starting/dying CPU context. Right now we kinda do that by trampling on the CPU with a high prio stomper thread, but that's really just a bandaid and steady cause of trouble. If you look at facilities which use kthreads, then there is lots other setup which does not need a notifier at all, as it can be done in the context of the thread when we have a way to start/park those threads at the right time in the up/down process. I've already done a prototype for kthread park/unpark and converted softirq over to use it. That makes the complete softirq notifier go away and let the core code handle the thread creation / start / park / unpark. It's pretty hacky right now, but I'm going to push on this next, once I have a better idea how to express the dependency tree. Thanks, tglx -- 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