linux-kernel - [Question] sched/rt_mutex: re-enqueue_task on rt_mutex

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:	Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:44:09 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [Question] sched/rt_mutex: re-enqueue_task on rt_mutex_setprio()

Hi,

I have a question on the code below:

void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio)
{
        ...
	if (on_rq)
		enqueue_task(rq, p, oldprio < prio ? ENQUEUE_HEAD : 0);

When enqueueing @p with new @prio, it seems put @p at the head of a
rq if appropriate. I guess it's the case of boosting @p with higher
priority, right? So Should the conditional be a reverse form (provided
that less number means higher priority)? Please shed some light on me.

Thanks,
Namhyung

--
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/