linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tick/nohz_full: don't abuse smp_call_function_single() in tick_setup

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

Message-ID: <Zliw3phiMCdGYwxq@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 13:01:18 -0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tick/nohz_full: don't abuse smp_call_function_single()
 in tick_setup_device()

On 05/30, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> Looks good, but can we have a WARN_ONCE(tick_do_timer_cpu != tick_do_timer_boot_cpu)
> right before that, just to make sure our assumptions above are right forever and
> the boot CPU hasn't stopped the tick up to that point?

Sure, I thought about the additional sanity checks too. Although I had something
different in mind.

Frederic, et al, I am on private trip again without my working laptop, can't read
the code. I'll reply on Saturday, OK?

Thanks for review!

Oleg.