linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq in check_preempt

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: <20110702090817.GB17482@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:08:17 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq in
 check_preempt_wakeup


* Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote:

> We update_curr() versus the current entity as the preemption 
> decision is based on the relative vruntime.  However, update_curr() 
> is not hierarchical and in the group scheduling case 
> find_matching_se() will have us making the comparison on a cfs_rq 
> different to the one just updated.

Would be nice to include more contextual information in the 
changelog: how did you find it, what effect (if any) did you
see from this patch, what effect do you expect others to see
(if any).

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/