linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] smp: Wake ksoftirqd on PREEMPT_RT instead do

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: <YU76mB5hzvw3xZRB@infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 25 Sep 2021 11:31:52 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp: Wake ksoftirqd on PREEMPT_RT instead do_softirq().

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:47:55AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> +	if (local_softirq_pending()) {
> +
> +		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> +			do_softirq();
> +		} else {
> +			struct task_struct *ksoftirqd = this_cpu_ksoftirqd();
> +
> +			if (ksoftirqd && !task_is_running(ksoftirqd))
> +				wake_up_process(ksoftirqd);
> +		}
> +	}

At a cosmetic level this looks pretty weird.  Why the empty line inside
the indented block?  Why the pointless negation instead of the obvious
more straightforward order?