Re: [PATCH] cryptoapi: Fix sleeping

[Matt Mackall]

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 : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/