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  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:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:09:21 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
To:     Tejun Heo <>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <>,,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] workqueue: convert to raw_spinlock_t

On 2019-06-26 06:49:57 [-0700], Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:17:19AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2019-06-13 16:50:21 [+0200], To wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > the workqueue code has been reworked in -RT to use raw_spinlock_t based
> > > locking. This change allows to schedule worker from preempt_disable()ed
> > > or IRQ disabled section on -RT. This is the last patch. The previous
> > > patches are prerequisites or tiny cleanup (like patch #1 and #2).
> > 
> > a gentle *ping*
> I don't now what to make of the series.  AFAICS, there's no benefit to
> mainline.  What am I missing?

Is there something specific you don't like? #1 and #2 are cleanups so we
don't argue about those right?
#5 makes use of swake_up which is slightly smaller compared to wake_up()
so that should be fine.
That last one makes no change to !RT because the difference between
raw_spin and spinlock is not existing. However I'm working a lockdep
patch which complains about wrong context so without it would complain
if anyone would try to schedule a workqueue from IRQ or preemption
disabled region.

> Thanks.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists