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: <BANLkTikFo=CNGf06sRkun7Ab7E0dusd7SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 09:44:21 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: correct how RT task is picked

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:19 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> The patch is prepared again, in which tests for both cpu and
>>>> nr_cpus_allowed are dropped.
>>>>
>>>> The reason to drop nr_cpus_allowed is to make sure that the
>>>> returned value is correct for both case that cpu == rq->cpu and
>>>> case that cpu != rq->cpu.
>>>
>>> -ENOPARSE
>>>
>>> Why would we pick a task that can't migrate?
>>>
>> Hi Steven
>>
>> For migration, it is the case that cpu != rq->cpu, and
>> if cpu is allowed by task's affinity, it is bug that task
>> could not goto cpu because of nr_cpus_allowed since
>> the nr_cpus_allowed is computed based on the cpus_allowed mask.
>
> But for next_prio(), we just calculate the next highest migratible task
> for a rq regardless on which cpu that task will run, say we let cpu=rq->cpu
> to be second parameter of pick_next_highest_task_rt(), IOW, it has
> the same effect as cpu = -1
>

That means we could get a bound task's priority for the rt_rq's next highest
priority.


> Thanks,
> Yong
>
>
>
> --
> Only stand for myself
>



-- 
Only stand for myself
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ