linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] powerpc/smp: Topology and shared processor optimizations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87msuhdnl3.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:45:44 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rohan McLure <rmclure@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] powerpc/smp: Topology and shared processor
 optimizations

Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> * Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2023-11-09 11:19:28]:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>> PowerVM systems configured in shared processors mode have some unique
>> challenges. Some device-tree properties will be missing on a shared
>> processor. Hence some sched domains may not make sense for shared processor
>> systems.
>> 
>> 
>
> Did you get a chance to look at this patchset?
> Do you see this getting pulled into your merge branch?
> I havent seen any comments that requires a change from the current patchset.

I was assuming you'd send another version to at least incorporate the
clarifications you posted.

And I wasn't really sure the discussion about the prink_once() change
was resolved. Anyway I'll check with Aneesh.

cheers