linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/30] thread_info: tif_need_resched() now takes resched

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: <87il2hfr7c.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:22:15 -0800
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ankur Arora
 <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, bristot@...nel.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
        glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com,
        mattst88@...il.com, krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/30] thread_info: tif_need_resched() now takes
 resched_t as param


Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 20 2024 at 14:21, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>>>> static __always_inline bool tif_need_resched_lazy(void)
>>>> {
>>>> 	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) &&
>>>> 	        __tif_need_resched(TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Yes please.
>>
>> As I wrote to Mark in the sibling subthread, I think exposing
>> the lazy variants outside of the scheduler isn't really needed.
>
> But having a proper wrapper inline in the scheduler code (local header)
> makes still a lot of sense.

Yeah, there are a few callsites where this will help. Will do.

Thanks

--
ankur