On Wed, Apr 26 2023 at 08:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:51:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> If not then it's just yet another way of DoS which is an "acceptable"
>> attack as it only affects availability but not confidentiality.
>
> Sure.
>
> My thinking is that this is
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:51:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17 2023 at 16:50, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > As a tangent/aside, we might need to improve that for confidential compute
> > architectures, and we might want to generically track cpus which might
> > still be
> > using
On Mon, Apr 17 2023 at 16:50, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:44:49AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I gave this a spin on arm64 (in a 64-vCPU VM on an M1 host), and it seems to
> work fine with a bunch of vCPUs being hotplugged off and on again randomly.
>
> FWIW:
>
> Tested-by:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:44:49AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Switch to the CPU hotplug core state tracking and synchronization
> mechanim. No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Catalin Marinas
> Cc: Will Deacon
> Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
Switch to the CPU hotplug core state tracking and synchronization
mechanim. No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Will Deacon
Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig |1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h |2
