linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain

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:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:57:23 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain_all() selective

Hello, Chris.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:03:39PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Tejun, I don't know if you have a better idea for how to mark a
> work_struct as being "not used" so we can set and test it here.
> Is setting entry.next to NULL good?  Should we offer it as an API
> in the workqueue header?

Maybe simply defining a static cpumask would be cleaner?

> We could wrap the whole thing in a new workqueue API too, of course
> (schedule_on_each_cpu_cond_sequential??) but it seems better at this
> point to wait until we find another caller with similar needs, and only
> then factor the code into a new workqueue API.

We can have e.g. __schedule_on_cpu(fn, pcpu_works) but yeah it seems a
bit excessive at this point.

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/