linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] workqueue: Make the workqueue code PREEMPT

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: <20200526194641.GF83516@mtj.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 15:46:41 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] workqueue: Make the workqueue code PREEMPT_RT safe

Hello,

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 06:27:29PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The series changes `wq_manager_wait' from waitqueues to simple
> waitqueues and its internal locking (pool::lock and wq_mayday_lock) to
> raw spinlocks so that workqueues can be used on PREEMPT_RT from truly
> atomic context.

No objection from workqueue side but the comment in swait.h doesn't look too
encouraging. Kinda difficult to make a call from my side. Linus, does this
qualify as the RT use case you had on mind?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun