linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: change scheduler annotation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080731163456.GE26393@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:34:56 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: change scheduler annotation


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> While thinking about David's patch it _finally_ dawned on me that 
> there is no reason we have a lock class per cpu..

/me arghs too! :)

> Sorry for being dense :-/
> 
> The below changes the annotation from a lock class per cpu, to a 
> single nested lock, as the scheduler never holds more that 2 rq locks 
> at a time anyway.
> 
> If there was code requiring holding all rq locks this would not work 
> and the original annotation would be the only option, but that not 
> being the case, this is a much lighter one.
> 
> Compiles and boots on a 2-way x86_64.

applied to tip/sched/urgent - thanks Peter!

	Ingo
--
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/