linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: remove resetting exec_start in put_prev_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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Y+0h9bMaT6Z4+MhHf==POMKJNoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:38:44 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: remove resetting exec_start in put_prev_task_rt()

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> I disagree. Yes the exec_start is reset there, but I like the fact that
> it's 0 when not running.

Actually this depends on how we look at the code:
if we set exec_start to 0 explicitly, as you said the code is more direct and
readable.
if we don't set exec_start to 0, we can save one instruction though
it's minor.

I have no strong opinion on either of them :)

BTW, put_prev_task_fair() doesn't set exec_start to 0.

Thanks,
Yong


-- 
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/