linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sync a se with its cfs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:01:04 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yuyang.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sync a se with its cfs_rq when att(det)aching it

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:11:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:46:09PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:38:41PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:17:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I did something like this on top.. please have a look at the XXX and
> > > > integrate.
> > > 
> > > i am not sure, what do you intend for me to do.
> > > 
> > > do you mean that i am supposed to integrate this cleanup patch you gave me
> > > including the XXX comment?
> 
> No, the intent was for you to think about the point marked XXX, which
> you've done below.
> 
> > > > +	 *
> > > > +	 * XXX this appears wrong!! check history, 
> > > > +	 * we appear to always set queued and RUNNING under the same lock instance
> > > > +	 * might be from before TASK_WAKING ?
> > > >  	 */
> > > 
> > > is it impossible to happen to check if vruntime is normalized, when doing
> > > something like e.g. active load balance where queued != TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED
> > > and p->state == TASK_RUNNING?
> > 
> > furthermore, in any migration by load balance, it seems to be possible..
> > 
> > > 
> > > i think it can happen..
> 
> OK, then we need to change the comment to reflect the actual reason the
> test is needed. Because I think the currently described scenario is
> incorrect.

what is the currently described scenario to need to change?

then.. did i change patches as what you suggested, in v4?

> --
> 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/
--
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/