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  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]
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:42:34 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
	Johan Eker <johan.eker@...csson.com>,
	"p.faure" <p.faure@...tech.ch>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
	michael trimarchi <trimarchi@...is.sssup.it>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
	Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
	Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
	paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Simplify cpu-hot-unplug task migration

On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 20:27 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Peter, sorry for delay.
> 
> I was going to read this patch carefully today, but due to the holiday
> in the Czech Republic I have to drink (too much) beer instead ;)
> 
> This means you should probably ignore my question, but can't resist...
> 
> > -static void migrate_dead_tasks(unsigned int dead_cpu)
> > -{
> > -	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(dead_cpu);
> > -	struct task_struct *next;
> > +	rq->stop = NULL;
> 
> (or we could do current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIPLE, afaics)

Ah, you missed a patch that made pick_next_task_stop() look like:

static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq)
{
        struct task_struct *stop = rq->stop;

        if (stop && stop->se.on_rq)
                return stop;

        return NULL;
}

> >  	for ( ; ; ) {
> > -		if (!rq->nr_running)
> > +		/*
> > +		 * There's this thread running, bail when that's the only
> > +		 * remaining thread.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (rq->nr_running == 1)
> >  			break;
> 
> I was very much confused, and I was going to say this is wrong.
> However, now I think this is correct, just the comment is not
> right.
> 
> There is another running thread we should not migrate, rq->idle.
> If nothing else, dequeue_task_idle() should be never called.

In fact, dequeue_task_idle() will yell if you try that ;-)

> But, if I understand correctly, ->nr_running does not account
> the idle thread, and this is what makes this correct.
> 
> Correct?

Right, I can add: (the idle thread is not counted in nr_running), if
that makes things clearer for you; however its a quite fundamental
property, we don't consider the idle task a proper runnable entity, its
simply the thing we do when there's nothing else to do.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists