linux-kernel - Re: sched_setscheduler() vs idle

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: <20150601082423.GS19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:24:23 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	ktkhai@...allels.com
Subject: Re: sched_setscheduler() vs idle_balance() race

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 08:39:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I don't see why we can't just say no in can_migrate_task() if ->pi_lock
> is held.

I suppose we could do that; what I really want to avoid is also
requiring pi_lock for scheduling.

The down-side of looking at pi_lock for migration is that there is no
common point for migrating tasks, its all inside the classes, so we'd
get to sprinkle it all over the place.
--
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/