linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] CPU controller

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]

Message-Id: <1156180241.6582.69.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:10:41 +0000
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, sekharan@...ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] CPU controller - V1

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 18:18 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:42:40AM +0000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > WRT interactivity: Looking at try_to_wake_up(), it appears that wake-up
> > of a high priority group-a task will not result in preemption of a lower
> > priority current group-b task.  True?
> 
> I dont think it is true. The definition of TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR() is
> unchanged with these patches.

I must be missing something.  If current and awakening tasks have
separate runqueues, task_rq(awakening)->curr != current.  We won't look
at current->prio, so won't resched(current).

	-Mike

-
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/