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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20090710182947.GB5271@nowhere>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:29:48 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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, Jul 10, 2009 at 08:13:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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().


Good idea, I'm trying that.

--
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/