linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Move the sleeping while atomic checks early in cond

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: <1247249622.6042.7.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:13:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Move the sleeping while atomic checks early in
 cond_resched()

On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 20:08 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> > Right, how about renaming these to _cond_resched_{lock,softirq}, and
> > added a __might_sleep() definition for !DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP and add
> > macro wrappers to sched.c for these two as well?
> 
> I did that first but thought that might_sleep() would fail in a spinlock
> held or softirq context, right?

Ah, right.. maybe we can add a preempt_count_offset parameter to
__might_sleep() such that it will compensate for the pending
spin_unlock()/local_bh_enable().



--
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/