linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

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:	Wed, 28 May 2014 22:26:56 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

On Mon, 5 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> В Сб, 03/05/2014 в 20:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет:
> > Though exercising that code path as much as we can is not a bad thing
> > either. So I'd like to see that made compile time conditional on one
> > of the lock testing CONFIG items.
>  
> +#ifndef CONFIG_RT_MUTEX_BOOST_ALL

No, not another pointless config option. Read what I said. What's
wrong with using an existing config item, e.g DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES?

> +#define heritable_prio(prio)		(rt_prio(prio) || dl_prio(prio))

inheritable please. It's not priority heritance and never will be.

Thanks,

	tglx