linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 17/18] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to the remote cpu

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

Date:	Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:16:53 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	frank.rowand@...sony.com
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"Rowand, Frank" <Frank_Rowand@...yusa.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 17/18] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to
 the remote cpu

On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 16:04 -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
> 
> I haven't yet tried to twist my head around either the sched_fair or the
> sched_rt load balance paths.  But wouldn't it just be safer (especially
> given that the load balance code will be modified by somebody at some
> point in the future, and that this locking complexity does require head
> twisting) to just add the pi_lock in the load-balance paths also? 

I don't think that's needed, and I'm generally hesitant to add atomics
where not strictly needed.


--
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/