| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:29:19 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, cl@...ux.com,
penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
hannes@...xchg.org, urezki@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Raw spinlocks and memory allocation
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:24:57 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> The reason for this restriction is that in -rt, the spin_lock(&zone->lock)
> in rmqueue_bulk() can sleep.
So if there is runtime overhead, this overhead could be restricted to
-rt kernels with suitable ifdefs?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists