linux-kernel - Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160227.180403.2101360385050644823.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:04:03 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	peter@...leysoftware.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	john.ogness@...utronix.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:29:39 -0800

> Not really. softirq raised from interrupt context will always execute
> on this cpu and not in ksoftirqd, unless load forces softirq loop abort.

That guarantee never was specified.

Or are you saying that by design, on a system under load, your UART
will not function properly?

Surely you don't mean that.