linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_alloc: add scheduling point to free_unref_page

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20220309192947.0b4c8c875c492de09c1ab632@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:29:47 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     wangjianxing <wangjianxing@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_alloc: add scheduling point to
 free_unref_page_list

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:48:41 +0800 wangjianxing <wangjianxing@...ngson.cn> wrote:

> spin_lock will preempt_disable(), interrupt context will 
> __irq_enter/local_bh_disable and also add preempt count with offset.
> 
> cond_resched check whether if preempt_count == 0 in first and won't 
> schedule in previous context.
> 
> Is this right?
> 
> 
> With another way, could we add some condition to avoid call cond_resched 
> in interrupt context or spin_lock()?
> 
> + if (preemptible())
> +       cond_resched();
> 

None of this works with CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n.