linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: Fixed missed rt-balance points on priority shifts

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <475C69B7.BA47.005A.0@novell.com>
Date:	Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:18:31 -0500
From:	"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	<mingo@...e.hu>, <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	<rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Gregory Haskins" <GHaskins@...ell.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: Fixed missed rt-balance points on
	priority shifts

>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2007 at  9:53 PM, in message
<20071210024709.4760.68134.stgit@...ell1.haskins.net>, Gregory Haskins
<ghaskins@...ell.com> wrote: 

> +		 * I have no doubt that this is the proper thing to do to make
> +		 * sure RT tasks are properly balanced.  What I cannot wrap my
> +		 * head around at this late hour is if issuing a reschedule()
> +		 * here may cause issues in other circumstances.  TBD
> +		 */
> +		if (!task_running(rq, p))
> +			resched_task(rq->curr);
> +	}

It dawned on me after I sent this that a further optimization here is to predicate the reschedule on whether we are overloaded.  In otherwords:

if (!task_running(rq, p) && rt_overloaded(rq))

Regards,
-Greg

--
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/