linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] dm: Remove dm_bufio_cond

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: <20160923090524.GE5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:05:24 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, Joe Thornber <ejt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] dm: Remove dm_bufio_cond_resched()

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:00:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It is, might_sleep() implies might_resched(). In fact, that's all what
> > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is, make the might_sleep() debug test imply a resched
> > point.
> 
> Grr, how intuitive - NOT!

No, it actually makes sense. Because you 'obviously' only call
might_sleep() in contexts that should be able to sleep (if not, it'll
holler). So they're already placed right for preemption.