linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Pull resched loop to _

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFy3NeAFBbu38gOpDiynBa-ipi2QmPn8Aymjko6pxmx7xA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:16:13 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Pull resched loop to __schedule() callers

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
> But it may have an impact on some context checkers that rely on in_atomic*()
> which ignore the PREEMPT_ACTIVE value. It shouldn't ignore that though but I
> guess it's a hack for some specific situation.

I think we should remove it. The only reason for it is the scheduler
itself, which used to have the in_atomic() check (ok, still has, it's
just called "in_atomic_preempt_off()").

But yes, if we keep the "mask off PREEMPT_ACTIVE" in in_atomic(), then
we do need to update the counts with "PREEMPT_ACTIVE+1" instead. Or
something like that.

                Linus
--
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/