netdev - Re: question about softirqs

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: <20090512.222848.152842353.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 22:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	paulus@...ba.org
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, cfriesen@...tel.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about softirqs

From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:15:34 +1000

> David Miller writes:
> 
>> I fully expected us to be, at this point, talking about putting the
>> pending softirq check back into the trap return path :-/
> 
> Would that actually do any good, in the case where the system has
> decided that ksoftirqd is handling soft irqs at the moment?

Even if ksoftirqd is running, we check and run pending softirqs from
trap return.

Sure, I imagine we could re-enter this "ksoftirq blocked by highprio
thread" situation if we get flooded every single time over and over
again.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html