linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] timer: Check thread timers only when there are active thread timers

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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:41:16 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] timer: Check thread timers only when there are
 active thread timers

On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 13:04 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> -	check_thread_timers(tsk, &firing);
> +	if (!task_cputime_zero(&tsk->cputime_expires))
> +		check_thread_timers(tsk, &firing);
> 
> Sincere question; I'm not certain myself: would it make more sense to put
> this shortcut into check_thread_timers()?
> 
> It seems more like an optimization of that function than something the
> caller needs to know about.

Yes, I also thought it might be better if we add something like:

	if (task_cputime_zero(&tsk->cputime_expires)
		return;

in check_thread_timers(). The reason I made it this way though is
because in the next few lines, we do a similar check before calling
check_process_timers(), and I wanted to keep things consistent.

However, perhaps we can consider also moving that
tsk->signal->cputimer.running check into check_process_timers() too.

Thanks for the suggestions.

--
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/