linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/32] nohz: Adaptive tick stop and restart on nohz cpuset

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: <1314641230.2816.129.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:07:10 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/32] nohz: Adaptive tick stop and restart on nohz
 cpuset

On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 20:02 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 05:28:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:52 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > +bool cpuset_nohz_can_stop_tick(void)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct rq *rq;
> > > +
> > > +       rq = this_rq();
> > > +
> > > +       /* More than one running task need preemption */
> > > +       if (rq->nr_running > 1)
> > > +               return false;
> > > +
> > > +       return true;
> > > +} 
> > 
> > int sched_needs_cpu(int cpu), seems the right name, matches the existing
> > {rcu,printk,arch}_needs_cpu() functions.
> 
> tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() already handles that by keeping a periodic
> behaviour if one of these conditions are met.

What? tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() most surely cannot access struct rq,
so it cannot do the nr_running test.

> It has also the upside to restore the periodic behaviour if needed
> from irq return if the tick was stopped.

Again, what?
--
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/