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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20201031180911.GA12737@infradead.org> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:09:11 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, David Runge <dave@...epmap.de>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 09:01:45AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/31/20 9:00 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 10/31/20 4:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >> On 2020-10-29 14:07:59 [-0700], Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >>>> in which context? > >>> > >>> Not sure what is the question. > >> > >> The question is in which context do you complete your requests. My guess > >> by now is "usually softirq/NAPI and context in rare error case". > > > > There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to > > complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and > > that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always > > been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere. > > A more recent example is polled IO, which will always complete from > process/task context and very much is fast path. But we never IPI for that anyway, so it is the easy case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists