linux-kernel - Re: [patch -rt 1/2] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq

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: <20150305010920.GB10924@amt.cnet>
Date:	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 22:09:20 -0300
From:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch -rt 1/2] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:23:57PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 06:44:19PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra | 2015-01-21 16:07:16 [+0100]:
> > 
> > >On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >> I'm actually wondering if we should just nuke the _interruptible()
> > >> version of swait. As it should only be all interruptible or all not
> > >> interruptible, that the swait_wake() should just do the wake up
> > >> regardless. In which case, swait_wake() is good enough. No need to have
> > >> different versions where people may think do something special.
> > >> 
> > >> Peter?
> > >
> > >Yeah, I think the lastest thing I have sitting here on my disk only has
> > >the swake_up() which does TASK_NORMAL, no choice there.
> > 
> > what is the swait status in terms of mainline? This sounds like it
> > beeing worked on.
> > I could take the series but then I would drop it again if the mainline
> > implementation changes…
> 
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> No, you would just adjust it to the upstream kernel interfaces, as the rest of
> the -rt users of the swait interfaces.
> 
> Can you please include the series?
> 
> Thanks

Sebastian?

--
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/