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  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:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:33:24 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
CC:	<>, Christoph Lameter <>,
	Kevin Hilman <>,
	Mike Galbraith <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Viresh Kumar <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 V6] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue

On 04/07/2015 09:58 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:25:59AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On 04/06/2015 11:53 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 07:14:42PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>>  	/* make a copy of @attrs and sanitize it */
>>>>  	copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
>>>> -	cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, wq_unbound_global_cpumask);
>>>> +	copy_workqueue_attrs(pwq_attrs, attrs);
>>>> +	cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);
>>>> +	cpumask_and(pwq_attrs->cpumask, pwq_attrs->cpumask, unbound_cpumask);
>>> Hmmm... why do we need to keep track of both cpu_possible_mask and
>>> unbound_cpumask?  Can't we just make unbound_cpumask replace
>>> cpu_possible_mask for unbound workqueues?
>> I want to save the original user-setting cpumask.
>> When any time the wq_unbound_global_cpumask is changed,
>> the new effective cpumask is
>> the-original-user-setting-cpumask & wq_unbound_global_cpumask
>> instead of
>> the-last-effective-cpumask & wq_unbound_global_cpumask.
> Yes, I get that, but that'd require just tracking the original

wq->unbound_attrs (new_attrs) saves the original configured value
and is needed to be keep track of.
For sanity, it needs to be masked with cpu_possible_mask.

+	cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);

This code is changed back to the original code (before this patchset).

In the next iterate, I will reduce the number of the local vars to make
the code clearer.

> configured value and the unbound_cpumask masked value, no?  What am I
> missing?
> Thanks.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists