linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] softlockup: remove hung_task_check

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:34:57 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>
Cc:	fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rientjes@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, thockin@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] softlockup: remove hung_task_check_count


* Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com> wrote:

> > do the need_resched() check first (it's very lighweight) - and thus 
> > only do the heavy ops (get-task-struct & tasklist_lock unlock) if that 
> > is set?
> 
> Wanted to upper-bound the amount of time the lock is held. In order to 
> give others a chance to write_lock the tasklist, released the lock 
> regardless of whether a re-schedule is need.

but this:

> +static void check_hung_reschedule(struct task_struct *t)
> +{
> +	get_task_struct(t);
> +	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +	if (need_resched())
> +		schedule();
> +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +	put_task_struct(t);
> +}

does not actually achieve that. Releasing a lock does not mean that other 
CPUs will immediately be able to get it - if the ex-owner quickly 
re-acquires it then it will often succeed in doing so. Perhaps adding a 
cpu_relax() would increase the chance ... but still, it looks a bit weird.

	Ingo
--
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/