[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPM31RJJhtF3RR_Xf+kim-aas59eQ75AUJuu1qzBU_v0mE6sqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:32:15 -0800
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.15 00/24] Restartable sequences and CPU op
vector v11
I have some comments that apply to many of the threads.
I've been fully occupied with a wedding and a security issue; but I'm
about to be free to spend the majority of my time on RSEQ things.
I was sorely hoping that day would be today. But it's looking like
I'm still a day or two from being free for this.
Thank you for the extensive clean-ups and user-side development. I
have some updates on these topics also.
- Paul
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>> Here is the last RFC round of the updated rseq patchset containing:
>>
>> Andy? You were the one with concerns here and said you'd have
>> something else ready for comparison.
>>
>
> I had a long discussion with Mathieu and KS and I think that this is a
> good compromise. I haven't reviewed the series all that carefully,
> but I think the idea is sound.
>
> Basically, event_counter is gone (to be re-added in a later kernel if
> it really ends up being necessary, but it looks like it may primarily
> be a temptation to write subtly incorrect user code and to see
> scheduling details that shouldn't be readily exposed rather than a
> genuinely useful feature) and the versioning mechanism for the asm
> critical section bit is improved. My crazy proposal should be doable
> on top of this if there's demand and if anyone wants to write the
> gnarly code involved.
>
> IOW no objection from me as long as those changes were made, which I
> *think* they were. Mathieu?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists