linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] irq/matrix: Spread managed interrupts on allocation

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]

Message-ID: <d8f6c9d3-9947-a5ba-3b2b-b8625d2afeb5@163.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:02:51 +0800
From:   Dou Liyang <dou_liyang@....com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] irq/matrix: Spread managed interrupts on
 allocation

Dear Thomas,

On 2018/9/17 23:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> I think it's still worthwhile to do that, but the changelog needs a major
> overhaul as right now it's outright misleading. I'll just amend it with
> something along the above lines, unless someone disagrees.
> 

Yeah, Yes, right, I was wrong, can't prevent vector exhaustion, just
make it looks balance as you said. Thank you so much.

> That said, it might also be interesting to allow user space affinity
> settings on managed interrupts. Not meant for the pre/post vector case,
> which just needs to be made non managed. It's meant for the case where a

Yes, I am cooking according to the direction you are proposing.
Recently, I changed my PC and just completed the configuration of the
environment. ;-)

Thanks,
	dou