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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:47:52 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> Cc: Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] dm: Remove dm_bufio_cond_resched() On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:49:07AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > While grepping for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY I ran into dm_bufio_cond_resched() > > and wondered WTH it was about. > > cond_resched() calls _cond_resched() even if when we have a preemptive > kernel - with preemptive kernel, calling cond_resched is pointless because > rescheduling is done peemtively. > > So, I added that dm_bufio_cond_resched(), that does nothing on peemptive > kernels (and also on PREEMPT_NONE kernels where the user doesn't care > about latency). > > What is the reason why cond_resched() tests for rescheduling with > preemptive kernel? Why should I use cond_resched() in that case? Because every body else does too. 'Fixing' something like that in the dm code is entirely the wrong place. Also, you loose out on the might_sleep() warning implied in it. As it happens, I have a patch fixing that somewhere, let me try and get it merged. But thanks for the reminder, I'll go write a Changelog for this so that people can commit.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists