linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: leave sched_setscheduler earlier if possible.

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: <1300976519.14261.141.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:21:59 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: leave sched_setscheduler earlier if possible.

On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:00 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> sched_setscheduler (in sched.c) is called in order of changing the
> scheduling policy and/or the real-time priority of a task. Thus,
> if we find out that neither of those are actually being modified, it
> is possible to return earlier and save the overhead of a full
> deactivate+activate cycle of the task in question.
> 
> Beside that, if we have more than one SCHED_FIFO task with the same
> priority on the same rq (which means they share the same priority queue)
> having one of them changing its position in the priority queue because of
> a sched_setscheduler (as it happens by means of the deactivate+activate)
> that does not actually change the priority violates POSIX which states,
> for SCHED_FIFO:
> 
> "If a thread whose policy or priority has been modified by
> pthread_setschedprio() is a running thread or is runnable, the effect on
> its position in the thread list depends on the direction of the
> modification, as follows: a. <...> b. If the priority is unchanged, the
> thread does not change position in the thread list. c. <...>"
> 
> (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>

> ---
>  kernel/sched.c |   10 ++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index c5ae6bc..d73bbc5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c


> @@ -4998,6 +4998,16 @@ recheck:

Peter, this is why I prefer:

 recheck:
over
recheck:

-- Steve


>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If not changing anything there's no need to proceed further
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(policy == p->policy && (!rt_policy(policy) ||
> +	    param->sched_priority == p->rt_priority))) {
> +			__task_rq_unlock(rq);
> +			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> +			return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
>  	if (user) {
>  		/*
> -- 
> 1.7.4.1
> 


--
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/