linux-kernel - Re: ipi_redirect vs rq

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]

Message-ID: <20140124191129.GG7483@kernel.dk>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:11:29 -0800
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ipi_redirect vs rq_affinity

On Fri, Jan 24 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> it seems like blk-mq uses the ipi_redirect attribute in pretty much the
> same way as the old blk-softirq code used the rq_affinity one, except
> that the old code has an additional option to direct into any core in
> the current package.
> 
> Is there any good reason to not reuse the old name and semantics?

It is pretty much the same. I don't like the semantics of the old one,
where it's 0/1/2 for off/on/different-on, though. Seems like now would
be a good time to clean it up.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/