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  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:   Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:11:52 +1100
From:   Balbir Singh <>
To:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <>,
        Julien Desfossez <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Tim Chen <>,
        Vineeth Pillai <>,
        Aaron Lu <>,
        Aubrey Li <>,,,,,,,,
        Phil Auld <>,
        Valentin Schneider <>,
        Mel Gorman <>,
        Pawan Gupta <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,,
        Chen Yu <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Agata Gruza <>,
        Antonio Gomez Iglesias <>,,,,,,,,
        Alexandre Chartre <>,,,
        Dhaval Giani <>,
        Junaid Shahid <>,,, Ben Segall <>,
        Josh Don <>, Hao Luo <>,
        Tom Lendacky <>,
        Aubrey Li <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Tim Chen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 04/32] sched: Core-wide rq->lock

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:34PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <>
> Introduce the basic infrastructure to have a core wide rq->lock.

Reading through the patch, it seems like all the CPUs have to be
running with sched core enabled/disabled? Is it possible to have some
cores with core sched disabled? I don't see a strong use case for it,
but I am wondering if the design will fall apart if that assumption is

Balbir Singh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists