linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4 V6] workqueue: split apply_workqueue

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:	Mon, 6 Apr 2015 11:39:21 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4 V6] workqueue: split apply_workqueue_attrs() into 3
 stages

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 07:14:40PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> The patch doesn't have functionality changed except two minor adjustment:
> 	1) free_unbound_pwq() for the error path is removed, we use the
> 	   heavier version put_pwq_unlocked() instead since the error path
> 	   is rare. this adjustment simplifies the code.
> 	2) the memory-allocation is also moved into wq_pool_mutex.
> 	   this is needed to avoid to do the further splitting.

And we're dropping online_cpus locking before applying the new pwq's.
Is that safe?

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/