linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sync a se with its cfs

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: <20150820211131.GC3161@worktop.event.rightround.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:11:31 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yuyang.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sync a se with its cfs_rq when att(det)aching it

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:46:09PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:38:41PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:17:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > I did something like this on top.. please have a look at the XXX and
> > > integrate.
> > 
> > i am not sure, what do you intend for me to do.
> > 
> > do you mean that i am supposed to integrate this cleanup patch you gave me
> > including the XXX comment?

No, the intent was for you to think about the point marked XXX, which
you've done below.

> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * XXX this appears wrong!! check history, 
> > > +	 * we appear to always set queued and RUNNING under the same lock instance
> > > +	 * might be from before TASK_WAKING ?
> > >  	 */
> > 
> > is it impossible to happen to check if vruntime is normalized, when doing
> > something like e.g. active load balance where queued != TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED
> > and p->state == TASK_RUNNING?
> 
> furthermore, in any migration by load balance, it seems to be possible..
> 
> > 
> > i think it can happen..

OK, then we need to change the comment to reflect the actual reason the
test is needed. Because I think the currently described scenario is
incorrect.
--
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/