linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: add random preemption

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: <1277139011.1875.522.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:50:11 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: add random preemption

On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 09:43 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> > +     if (!preempt_count() && !(rcu_random(rrsp) % (nrealreaders * 20000)))
> > +             preempt_schedule();
> > +#endif
> 
> This one scared me for a bit -- then I realized that preempt_schedule()
> won't actually schedule if preemption is in any way disabled.  So the
> above really is OK, because Classic RCU and RCU-bh disable preemption.
> 
> So, should we have a comment to this effect, or is my hypersensitivity to
> RCU semantics unique to me? 

Well it seems to do a !preempt_count() test too, so I wouldn't worry too
much about it, still using preempt_schedule() doesn't seem right, why
not use cond_resched()?
--
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/