linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] reduce runqueue lock contention

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]

Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:59:29 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] reduce runqueue lock contention

On 12/13, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
> I have not been able to make sense of the task_running() check in
> try_to_wake_up(), even with that clue.  The try_to_wake_up() code in
> question is:
> ...
>
> What am I missing, or is the task_running() test not needed?

I am afraid I can misuderstood this all, including the question ;)

But, with __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW task_running() checks ->oncpu.
However, schedule() drops rq->lock after prev was deactivated but
before it clears prev->oncpu.

Oleg.

--
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/