linux-kernel - Question: sched_rt.c : is RT check needed within a RT func? dequeue_task_rt() calls update_curr_rt() which checks for priority of RR or FIFO :

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]

Message-ID: <000a01c7da3d$3f946ae0$6501a8c0@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:24:57 -0700
From:	"Mitchell Erblich" <erblichs@...thlink.net>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Question: sched_rt.c : is RT check needed within a RT func? dequeue_task_rt() calls update_curr_rt() which checks for priority of RR or FIFO : 

1) * Possible wasted stats overhead during dequeue..
sched_rt.c: 
Is RT check needed within a RT func? 
dequeue_task_rt() calls update_curr_rt() 
which checks for priority of RR or FIFO.

WITHIN..
static inline void update_curr_rt(struct rq *rq)

are the two lines..
if (!task_has_rt_policy(curr))
    return;

Generally if I am reading this right, then what
 RT task is neither FIFO or RR???

Thus, I think those two lines could be removed.

2) nit....
The comment within sched_rt.c
----->   Adding/removing a task to/from a priority array:
Is placed before dequeue_task_rt() where
enqueue_task_rt() is placed above the comment

Thus, the comment should be moved above enqueue_task_rt()

Mitchell Erblich

-
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/