| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1307163988.31814.11.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 01:06:28 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: remove the next highest_prio in RT scheduling On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 12:44 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > Both the next and curr reach same result, or incorrect result, before locking Not quite. curr could be of higher priority than this rq, but next be of lower priority. In that case, we still want to skip the rq. But this patch does simplify things, and I give you credit for that. I'll have to run some tests to see how much in practice this occurs, and see if it is worth removing and using your method instead. -- Steve > RQ, as the comment says, it is racy. After locking RQ, priority is checked again > to pull the correct tasks with no running task included. The difference between > the next and curr before locking RQ is the core of the patch that incorrect > result could be achieved with no updating the next field. > > thanks > Hillf -- 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