linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: remove resetting exec_start in put_prev_task

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:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:19:06 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: remove resetting exec_start in
 put_prev_task_rt()

On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 22:41 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 10:38 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > > I disagree. Yes the exec_start is reset there, but I like the fact that
> > > it's 0 when not running.
> > 
> > Actually this depends on how we look at the code:
> > if we set exec_start to 0 explicitly, as you said the code is more direct and
> > readable.
> > if we don't set exec_start to 0, we can save one instruction though
> > it's minor.
> > 
> > I have no strong opinion on either of them :)
> 
> I don't have any real strong opinion on this either, so I'll just let
> Peter decide :)

Yay! So IFF its correct (I didn't check) then sure it saves a whole
store :-), I don't think sched_fair clears exec_start on de-schedule
either.
--
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/