linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 4/7] RT overloaded runqueues accounting

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:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:19:25 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	dmitry.adamushko@...il.com, ghaskins@...ell.com,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 4/7] RT overloaded runqueues accounting

Paul M wrote:
> Cgroups doesn't change the locking rules for accessing a cpuset from a
> task - you have to have one of:

Good - could you comment task_cs() with this explanation?

The rules are derived from the cpuset rules, as you explain,
and as I suspected, but now task_cs() is the most popular
way to access a tasks cpuset from code within kernel/cpuset.c,
and that's code you added.

The reason that I started this subthread is that I didn't see
any immediate evidence that the RT code was honoring this locking,
and I suspected that I clear comment over task_cs() could have
clarified that for them.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/