linux-kernel - Re: question about disabling interrupts for workqueue pool?

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:	Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:01:29 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Clark Williams <clark@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: question about disabling interrupts for workqueue pool?

Hello, Steven.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 06:52:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Now my question is, are those local_irq_*() calls just for synchronizing
> with sched RCU? If so, can you use rcu_read_lock_sched() instead?

Hmmm... using local_irq_disable/enable() is more consistent as
irq-safe locks are used widely in workqueue.  Also, using
rcu_read_lock_sched() would mean that we'll have
spin_lock_irq_save/restore() nested inside preempt_disable/enable(),
which is a bit silly in upstream kernel.

That said, both paths you pointed out are rather cold, so I don't
think it'd matter.  Please feel free to send a patch with comment
explaining why local irq flipping, which fits better there, isn't
being used.

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/