linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/11] sched: Simplify INIT_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]

Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:47:51 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/11] sched: Simplify INIT_PREEMPT_COUNT

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:43:32AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> [ Resend with a "Reply-all" this time! ]
> 
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:28:26 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > As per commit d86ee4809d03 ("sched: optimize cond_resched()") we need
> > PREEMPT_ACTIVE to avoid cond_resched() from working before the
> > scheduler is setup.
> > 
> > However, keeping preemption disabled should do the same thing already,
> > making the PREEMPT_ACTIVE part entirely redundant.
> 
> Thus PREEMPT_ACTIVE wasn't needed at that commit either, or was it?

Correct. We might have actually discussed that at that time but decided
to be conservative -- but these be vague memories..

--
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/