linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Don't allow priority switch to realtime when the task doesn't belong to init_task_group and when CONFIG_RT_GROUP

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: <1227517575.7685.21906.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:06:15 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Don't allow priority switch to realtime when
 the task doesn't belong to init_task_group and when CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
 isn't set

On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 14:16 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:

> Which would mean the init_task_group becase it contains those tasks which are
> not grouped.

Only because of implementation details (we implement the !group case by
having them all part of a single group), conceptually they don't belong
to any group, hence talking about moving it to some group is just wrong.

Furthermore your statement shows another misconception, a group of
ungrouped tasks doesn't make sense. Either we support grouping, in which
case any task belongs to a group, or we don't and they all belong to no
(or the same) group.

--
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/