| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100903221303.GS2464@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:13:03 -0700 From: Arthur Kepner <akepner@....com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_core: module param to limit msix vec allocation On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:46:58PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Arthur Kepner <akepner@....com> > Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:30:44 -0700 > > > I have that running on a (very small) system and it seems to > > work OK. Will send out the patch in just a minute. > > Failure vs. non-failure of allocation of a kernel managed physical > resource can't be determined by a userland process which may or may > not be running. But even if there's no user process running, it's no worse than what we've got now. > > In fact, if I build all of my drivers built-in and use NFS root which > will activate and bring up network devices, userland won't even be > present when the interrupts are requested. Yep. This only works once the user-level irq balancer is available. > > No, you really can't do it this way, IRQ allocation management has to > be in the kernel. Really? I was specifically trying to avoid that, and let the policy about interrupt assignment be done in a user process. Do you have any specific ideas about how that'd look? -- Arthur -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists