linux-kernel - Re: Can any one tell me why cond_resched in do

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]

Date:	Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:00:06 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Wang Nan" <wn.at.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Can any one tell me why cond_resched in do_select?

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:01:53 +0800 "Wang Nan" <wn.at.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
> I have a question regarding to select system call's code. In
> do_select() function, after check each fd in the set, do_select() call
> cond_resched(). That line, according to my view, is to reduce the
> system freeze time when do the busy querying. But before the call,
> when entering into the big loop, do_select call
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE). Then, if the reschedule really
> taken up, the current process will not return unless it catch a
> signal, or one of already registered fd send an event.
> I've tried in UML. If I replace the cond_resched() into schedule(),
> when sys_select() called, the process halt just like I've said.
> I don't think there is a bug because this code exist so long time and
> no really bad thing happened. I just want to know that, since no
> schedule() allowed here, can we delete the useless line?

It does look a bit odd.  IIRC, cond_resched() is special, in that if it is
called in state TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE it will _not_ return in state
TASK_RUNNING after having called schedule().

Search for PREEMPT_ACTIVE in kernel/sched.c.  See if you can work out what
this code:


	if (prev->state && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)) {
		if (unlikely((prev->state & TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) &&
				unlikely(signal_pending(prev)))) {
			prev->state = TASK_RUNNING;
		} else {
			deactivate_task(rq, prev, 1);
		}
		switch_count = &prev->nvcsw;
	}

is doing, then send a patch which adds the missing comment :)
--
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/