linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] stop_machine: yield CPU during stop machine

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:47:47 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        xen-devel-request@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] stop_machine: yield CPU during stop machine

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:52:31AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Peter, I will fixup the patch set (I forgot to remove the lowlatency
> in 2 places) and push it on my tree for linux-next. Lets see what happens.
> Would the tip tree be the right place if things work out ok?

I think so, you're touching a fair bit of kernel/locking/ and there's
bound to be some conflicts with work there. So carrying it in the
locking tree might be best.