linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/10] softirq: Remove __ARCH_SET_SOFTIRQ

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:   Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:53:43 +0200
From:   Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] softirq: Remove __ARCH_SET_SOFTIRQ_PENDING

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:07:49 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 04:01:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:47:46PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:  
> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:16:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:  
> > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 04:27:05AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:  
> > > > > The last user of __ARCH_SET_SOFTIRQ_PENDING has been converted to generic
> > > > > per-cpu softirq mask. We can now remove this conditional.  
> > > > 
> > > > This seems like half a cleanup; who still has local_softirq_pending()
> > > > after this?  
> > > 
> > > Only s390 because it uses lowcore to store such cpu data.  
> > 
> > Is it worth keeping it there? It seems an aweful shame to keep this
> > stuff special cased for just the one arch. At the very least this
> > should've mentioned s390 is special and why.  
> 
> Right, I thought well about moving that special case to s390. I can
> do that in v2.

The lowcore optimization for softirq_pending field is not really needed,
just nice to have. But if there is a strong reason to make a common
definition for it we can certainly do that.

First try has hit the wall due to include file hell though.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.