linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] (latest tip) make dequeue

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: <49B9D9E3.5080108@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:28:27 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] (latest tip) make dequeue_task less confusing

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com> wrote:
>   
>> No.  On further consideration, I don't like my patch.
>>     
>
> With the __dequeue_task()+inline suggestion i made i think it 
> would be a micro-optimization and would not break symmetry in a 
> significant way.

What I realised, upon closer examination, is that enqueue_task has the
same issue (with wakeup); and that the one places where sleep and wakeup
are set are in a single call for each, to (de|en)activate_task. If it
made sense to do what I suggested, then it should be done all the way,
that is, move the sleep and wakeup code to those two places, and
replicate the (admittedly smaller) *queue_task and *activate_task at
those points. This smacks of premature optimisation.
--
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/