linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/11] sched: Create preempt

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: <20150929130201.GH3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:02:01 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/11] sched: Create preempt_count invariant

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:55:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:28:27AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >  #define init_task_preempt_count(p) do { \
> > -	task_thread_info(p)->preempt_count = PREEMPT_DISABLED; \
> > +	task_thread_info(p)->preempt_count = 2*PREEMPT_DISABLED; \
> 
> Since it's not quite obvious why we use this magic value without looking
> at schedule_tail() details, maybe add a little comment? (Just "/* see schedule_tail() */").

Right, I fixed that in 12/11 v2. I'll change that around a bit.

> > +	/*
> > +	 * Still have preempt_count() == 2, from:
> > +	 *
> > +	 *	schedule()
> > +	 *	  preempt_disable();			// 1
> > +	 *	  __schedule()
> > +	 *	    raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock)	// 2
> > +	 */
> 
> I found that a bit confusing first, because that's a preempt_count()
> we actually emulate for a new task. Maybe something like:
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * New task is init with preempt_count() == 2 because prev task left
> +        * us after:
> +	 *
> +	 *	schedule()
> +	 *	  preempt_disable();			// 1
> +	 *	  __schedule()
> +	 *	    raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock)	// 2
> +	 */

I think I'll move the comment to finish_task_switch(), but yes.
--
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/