| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Concurrency-managed workqueuesConcurrency-managed workqueuesPosted Oct 8, 2009 17:16 UTC (Thu) by mebrown (subscriber, #7960)In reply to: Concurrency-managed workqueues by mjg59 Parent article: Concurrency-managed workqueues
This is also true for Dell SMI implementation, so I'd assume that this is widely true or some kind of limitation of SMI. If you trigger a SMI from any CPU other than CPU #0, you get all kinds of interesting fireworks and possibly random memory locations overwritten.
(Log in to post comments)
Concurrency-managed workqueues Posted Oct 9, 2009 10:02 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Ah. SMI. Malevolently incompetent by default, then. :/
(ACPI triggering SMI. What a nice way to take a kernel-controls-all VM executor and throw you into the undefeined-behaviour swamp again. Sigh.)
Concurrency-managed workqueues Posted Oct 19, 2009 0:13 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] "Simply Malevolently Incompetent"?
|
|
||||||||||||