linux-kernel - Re: [rfc 19/45] cpu alloc: NFS statistics

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: <1195598802.7234.87.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:46:42 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, ak@...e.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, travis@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc 19/45] cpu alloc: NFS statistics


On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 16:50 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Then my original point is valid : put_no_resched() will cause unwanted
> scheduler latencies. It's designed only to be used from within the
> scheduler code itself. The correct approach would be a standard
> put_cpu().
> 
> Or am I missing something ?

Then someone who cares about scheduler latency had better audit the code
and figure out which calls are made under spinlock, and which aren't:
it's not on my personal list of high priorities. I'll be happy to review
any patches, though.

Trond

-
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/