netdev - Re: [Patch net] net_sched: replace yield() with cond

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:   Wed, 5 Apr 2017 16:42:18 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] net_sched: replace yield() with cond_resched()

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:19 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>
>> > That won't help, cond_resched() has the same impact upon a lone
>> > SCHED_FIFO task as yield() does.. none.
>>
>> Hmm? In the comment you quote:
>>
>>  * If you want to use yield() to wait for something, use wait_event().
>>  * If you want to use yield() to be 'nice' for others, use cond_resched().
>>
>> So if cond_resched() doesn't help, why this misleading comment?
>
> This is not an oh let's be nice guys thing, it's a perfect match of...
>
> <copy/paste>
>  * while (!event)
>  *      yield();
> (/copy/paste>
>
> ..get off the CPU until this happens thing.  With nobody to yield the C
> PU to, some_qdisc_is_busy() will remain true forever more.


This is exactly the misleading part, a while-loop waiting for an event
can always be a be-nice-for-others thing, because if not we can just
spin as a spinlock. You probably want to improve that comment to
explain when cond_resched() is a right solution to replace yield(),
so that I could know when it is not.

Thanks.