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, 4 Dec 2017 10:07:57 +0100
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Do not pull from current CPU if only one cpu
 to pull

On 04/12/17 03:09, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:45:17 +0100
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Right. I was wondering however if for the truly UP case we shouldn't be
> > initiating/queueing callbacks (pull/push) at all?
> 
> If !CONFIG_SMP then it's not compiled in. The issue came up when Daniel
> ran a CONFIG_SMP kernel on an arch that only supports UP.
> 

Right, sorry. I meant num_online_cpus() == 1.

Best,

Juri

Powered by blists - more mailing lists