linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/rt: Remove unnecessary condition in push_rt

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:   Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:43:06 +0000
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:     "byungchul.park" <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     juri.lelli@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
        'Steven Rostedt' <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/rt: Remove unnecessary condition in
 push_rt_task()

Hi,

On 16/02/17 16:15, byungchul.park wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Rostedt [mailto:rostedt@...dmis.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:46 AM
> > To: Byungchul Park
> > Cc: peterz@...radead.org; mingo@...nel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > juri.lelli@...il.com; kernel-team@....com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/rt: Remove unnecessary condition in
> > push_rt_task()
> > 
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:34:17 +0900
> > Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> > 
> > > pick_next_pushable_task(rq) has BUG_ON(rq_cpu != task_cpu(task)) when
> > > it returns a task other than NULL, which means that task_cpu(task) must
> > > be rq->cpu. So if task == next_task, then task_cpu(next_task) must be
> > > rq->cpu as well. Remove the redundant condition and make code simpler.
> > >
> > > By this patch, unnecessary one branch and two LOAD operations in 'if'
> > > statement can be avoided.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > This is a different patch, I don't believe Juri reviewed it yet.
> 
> Hello juri,
> 
> I should have asked you first and been more careful before I added
> 'reviewed-by'. Can I ask you for your opinion about the additional one?
> 

Looks good to me, you can leave my Reviewed-by.

Steve, thanks for pointing out that I didn't yet reviewed it. :)

Thanks,

- Juri