linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Report a quiescent state when it's exactly in the state

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: <20180511132910.4e729a26@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 13:29:10 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
        peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Report a quiescent state when it's exactly in the
 state

On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:27:35 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:27:12PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:25:28 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > I would also say that one should never call schedule() directly without
> > > changing its state to something other than TASK_RUNNING. Hence, calling
> > > schedule directly is saying you are ready to sleep. But that is not the
> > > case with cond_resched() which should always be called with the state
> > > as TASK_RUNNING.  
> > 
> > To continue this, with tracing, when a task is scheduled out in the
> > RUNNING state, it is considered preempted, otherwise it is not.  
> 
> I suppose another option would be for cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() to set
> (and later clear) a per-CPU variable that causes rcu_note_context_switch()
> to ignore its "preempt" parameter.  Byungchul's approach seems more
> straightforward, though.

I agree that I prefer Byungchul's approach better ;-)

-- Steve