linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: no sync wakeup from interrupt context

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YuuJcFkUVUfDvcYB@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:55:12 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Libo Chen <libo.chen@...cle.com>
Cc:     K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, mgorman@...e.de,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, 21cnbao@...il.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: no sync wakeup from interrupt context

* Libo Chen <libo.chen@...cle.com> wrote:

> Oh yes, I have no issue with holding the patch back until the regression 
> is fully understood. I was just a little confused on your reference to 
> Mel's comments. [...]

Yeah, that was just me getting confused about which change Mel was 
referring to, as I was looking for external confirmation saying what I was 
thinking about the patch: in_task()/in_interrupt() heuristics rarely do 
well. ;-)

> Anyway, I will post my investigation soon.

Thx - and measurements will always be able to override any negative 
expectations of mine, so my comments weren't a NAK.

Thanks,

	Ingo