linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/rt: Fix wrong SMP scheduler behavior for equal prio cases

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150423091057.05bcc309@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:10:57 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	pang.xunlei@....com.cn
Cc:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/rt: Fix wrong SMP scheduler behavior for
 equal prio cases

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:53:27 +0800
pang.xunlei@....com.cn wrote:
 
> > Why not use Peter's idea of instead of checking PREEMPT_ACTIVE, just
> > check if the task is on the runqueue or not. If it scheduled out, it
> > would take itself off the runqueue, if it was preempted by anything, it
> > would still be on the run queue, and according to FIFO, it should still
> > maintain CPU ownership over other tasks of the same prio.
> > 
> 
> But for yield() or RR scheduling when running out of time slice, 
> I think this would be still inappropriate, am I missing something? 

Good point, I'll have to look into this a bit more.

-- 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/