linux-kernel - Re: [patch -rt 2/2] KVM: lapic: mark LAPIC timer handler as irqsafe

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: <54806756.30503@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:53:26 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch -rt 2/2] KVM: lapic: mark LAPIC timer handler as irqsafe



On 25/11/2014 21:24, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 11/25/2014 12:21 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> Since lapic timer handler only wakes up a simple waitqueue,
>>> it can be executed from hardirq context.
>>>
>>> Reduces average cyclictest latency by 3us.
>>
>> Can this patch be merged in the KVM tree, and go
>> upstream via Paolo?
> 
> Not really as it has RT dependencies ....

Can hrtimer_start_expires even return ETIME on a non-RT kernel?  If yes,
I can take patch 2.  If not, it's better to keep both patches in the RT
tree.

Paolo
--
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/