linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] cpuidle-haltpoll: vcpu hotplug support

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 Aug 2019 14:50:21 +0100
From:   Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] cpuidle-haltpoll: vcpu hotplug support

On 8/29/19 12:56 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Hi Joao,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:56:50PM +0100, Joao Martins wrote:
>> +static void haltpoll_uninit(void)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>> +	cpus_read_lock();
>> +
>> +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> +		struct cpuidle_device *dev =
>> +			per_cpu_ptr(haltpoll_cpuidle_devices, cpu);
>> +
>> +		if (!dev->registered)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		arch_haltpoll_disable(cpu);
>> +		cpuidle_unregister_device(dev);
>> +	}
> 
> 1)
> 
>> +
>> +	cpuidle_unregister(&haltpoll_driver);
> 
> cpuidle_unregister_driver.

Will fix -- this was an oversight.

> 
>> +	free_percpu(haltpoll_cpuidle_devices);
>> +	haltpoll_cpuidle_devices = NULL;
>> +
>> +	cpus_read_unlock();
> 
> Any reason you can't cpus_read_unlock() at 1) ?
> 
No, let me adjust that too.

> Looks good otherwise.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
Thanks for the review!

	Joao