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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:40:02 +0400 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 2/3] Freezer: Use wait queue instead of busy looping (updated) On 08/02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > @@ -171,6 +186,10 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(int freez > > end_time = jiffies + TIMEOUT; > do { > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > + > + add_wait_queue(&refrigerator_waitq, &wait); Hmm. In that case I'd sugest to use prepare_to_wait(). This means that multiple wakeups from refrigerator() won't do unnecessary work, and > + > todo = 0; > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > do_each_thread(g, p) { > @@ -189,7 +208,12 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(int freez > todo++; > } while_each_thread(g, p); > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > - yield(); /* Yield is okay here */ > + > + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > + if (todo && !list_empty_careful(&wait.task_list)) > + schedule_timeout(WAIT_TIME); we don't need to check list_empty_careful() before schedule, prepare_to_wait() sets TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE under wait_queue_head_t->lock. Still, I personally agree with Pavel. Perhaps it is better to just replace yield() with schedule_timeout(a_bit). Oleg. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists