linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/cpupri: Remove cpupri->pri

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]

Date:	Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:26:40 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
	"Luis Claudio R." Gon�alves 
	<lgoncalv@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Hank Sabins <msabins@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpupri: Remove cpupri->pri_active

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 22:38 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched_cpupri.c |    3 ---
>  kernel/sched_cpupri.h |    2 --
>  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_cpupri.c b/kernel/sched_cpupri.c
> index 90faffd..5839559 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_cpupri.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_cpupri.c
> @@ -151,9 +151,6 @@ void cpupri_set(struct cpupri *cp, int cpu, int newpri)
>  	/*
>  	 * If the cpu was currently mapped to a different value, we
>  	 * need to map it to the new value then remove the old value.
> -	 * Note, we must add the new value first, otherwise we risk the
> -	 * cpu being cleared from pri_active, and this cpu could be
> -	 * missed for a push or pull.

Actually, the above still holds true, just not for pri_active. Probably
should be changed to:

	* Note, we must add the new value first, otherwise we risk the
	* cpu being missed by the priority loop in cpupri_find.

or something as such.

>  	 */
>  	if (likely(newpri != CPUPRI_INVALID)) {
>  		struct cpupri_vec *vec = &cp->pri_to_cpu[newpri];
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_cpupri.h b/kernel/sched_cpupri.h
> index 6b4cd17..f6d7561 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_cpupri.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched_cpupri.h
> @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  
>  #define CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES	(MAX_RT_PRIO + 2)
> -#define CPUPRI_NR_PRI_WORDS	BITS_TO_LONGS(CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES)
>  
>  #define CPUPRI_INVALID -1
>  #define CPUPRI_IDLE     0
> @@ -18,7 +17,6 @@ struct cpupri_vec {
>  
>  struct cpupri {
>  	struct cpupri_vec pri_to_cpu[CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES];
> -	long              pri_active[CPUPRI_NR_PRI_WORDS];
>  	int               cpu_to_pri[NR_CPUS];
>  };
>  


Otherwise looks good.

-- Steve


--
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/