linux-kernel - The purpose and implementation of cond

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:43 +0800
From:	"Dong Feng" <middle.fengdong@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: The purpose and implementation of cond_resched()

I have a question about cond_resched().

What is the condition under which I should invoke cond_resched() irreplaceably?

For example, I see the following code in ksoftirqd(),

preempt_enable_no_resched();
cond_resched();
preempt_disable();

But I do not understand why I should not write the following code,

preempt_enable();
preempt_disable();

Are the above two pieces of code equal in functionality?

On the other hand, I see cond_resched() check and set PREEMPT_ACTIVE.
I currently do not understand why it should do this, since I think
PREEMPT_ACTIVE is only used to be set in the return-from-interrupt
code in order to prevent schedule() from removing task from run queue
unpredictably. But for cond_resched(), which is a planned voluntary
switch, why does it also deal with this flag?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/