linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/22] sched: Remove TASK

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: <1300269200.2250.83.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:53:20 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	frank.rowand@...sony.com
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"Rowand, Frank" <Frank_Rowand@...yusa.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/22] sched: Remove TASK_WAKING

On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 17:49 -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 03/02/11 09:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > With the new locking TASK_WAKING has become obsolete, remove it.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
> > ---
> 
> < snip >
> 
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -2175,7 +2175,7 @@ void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p,
> >  	 * We should never call set_task_cpu() on a blocked task,
> >  	 * ttwu() will sort out the placement.
> >  	 */
> > -	WARN_ON_ONCE(p->state != TASK_RUNNING && p->state != TASK_WAKING &&
> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(p->state != TASK_RUNNING &&
> >  			!(task_thread_info(p)->preempt_count & PREEMPT_ACTIVE));
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > @@ -2613,7 +2613,7 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
> >  	smp_rmb();
> >  
> >  	p->sched_contributes_to_load = !!task_contributes_to_load(p);
> > -	p->state = TASK_WAKING;
> > +	p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> >  
> >  	if (p->sched_class->task_waking)
> >  		p->sched_class->task_waking(p);
> 
> No harm if the coded as in the patch, but an alternate suggestion
> if you like it:
> 
> The only reason left for "p->state = TASK_RUNNING;" here is when
> cpu is remote.  If cpu is not remote then p->state will be set by:
> 
>    ttwu_queue()
>       ttwu_do_activate()
>          ttwu_do_wakeup()
>             p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> 
> It would be more clear that setting state to TASK_RUNNING is protecting
> the process until it has been removed from the wake_list by
> sched_ttwu_pending() by setting p->state = TASK_RUNNING in ttwu_queue_remote().
> 

Yeah, its a bit of a maze.. maybe we should just drop this and keep the
slightly redundant but more clear TASK_WAKING around.



--
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/