netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC: linux-next 1/2] irq: Add CPU mask affinity hint callback framework

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004292121310.2951@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:48:24 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
cc:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC: linux-next 1/2] irq: Add CPU mask affinity hint
 callback framework

B1;2005;0cPeter,

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 09:45 -0700, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > So you need a reference to your device, so what about the following:
> > 
> > struct irq_affinity_hint;
> > 
> > struct irq_affinity_hint {
> >        unsigned int (*callback)(unsigned int irq, struct irq_affinity_hint *hint,
> > 				cpumask_var_t *mask);
> > }
> > 
> > Now you embed that struct into your device private data structure and
> > you get the reference to it back in the callback function. No extra
> > kmalloc/kfree, less code.
> 
> Good idea!  I'll roll that into my new version.

Thinking more about it, I wonder whether you have a cpu_mask in your
driver/device private data anyway. I bet you have :)

So it should be sufficient to set a pointer to that cpu_mask in
irq_desc and get rid of the callback completely.

Any access to desc->affinity_hint needs to be protected by desc->lock.
For setting the pointer to a real mask resp. NULL that's fine. The
copy which you need to do in the proc-read function is not going to
introduce huge latencies either.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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