linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Remove redundant lookup of rq in check_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, 21 Sep 2021 08:53:09 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Remove redundant lookup of rq in
 check_preempt_wakeup

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 16:26, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> >
> > The rq for curr is read during the function preamble, remove the
> > redundant lookup.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index ff69f245b939..038edfaaae9e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -7190,7 +7190,7 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_
> >         if (cse_is_idle != pse_is_idle)
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       update_curr(cfs_rq_of(se));
> > +       update_curr(cfs_rq);
> 
> se can have been modified by find_matching_se(&se, &pse)
> 

I still expected the cfs_rq to be the same, particularly given that the
context is about preempting the current task on a runqueue. Is that
wrong?

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs