[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cryptoapi: Fix sleeping
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 05:34:12PM -0700, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 17:21, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Do you really want to schedule inside preempt_disable() ?
> in_atomic() includes a check for preempt_disable() ... that is actually
> all it checks (the preempt_count). So this fix prevents that.
> This patch is interesting, though, because if right now we are
> scheduling in the middle of per-CPU code there is a bug (regardless of
> kernel preemption -- and with kernel preemption off, the in_atomic()
> check might return false even though the code is accessing per-processor
> data).
> So I think what we really want is to just never call this crypto_yield()
> thing when in any sort of critical section, which includes any
> per-processor data.

This is part of cryptoapi and given the large chunks of work you could
potentially hand to it, it's probably a good idea for it to work this
way. You hand it a long list of sg segments, it does the transform and
reschedules if it thinks it's safe. But its test of when it was safe
was not complete.

Matt Mackall : : of or relating to the moon
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.061 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site