On 10/21/20 10:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:27:22 +0200
> Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 20 2020 at 16:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:02:55 +0200
> > > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > What I wrote wasn't exactly what I meant. What I meant to have:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Since we are going to call schedule() anyways, there's
> > > * no need to do the preemption check when the rq_lock is released.
> > > */
> > >
> > > That is, to document why we have the preempt_disable() before the unlock:
> > >
> >
> > which is pretty obvious, but I let Peter decide on that.
>
> To us maybe, but I like to have comments that explain why things are done to
> average people. ;-)
>
> If I go to another kernel developer outside the core kernel, would they know
> why there's a preempt_disable() there?
>
>
> preempt_disable();
> rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
> sched_preempt_enable_no_resched();
>
> schedule();
>
>
> Not everyone knows that the rq_unlock_irq() would trigger a schedule if an
> interrupt happened as soon as irqs were enabled again and need_resched was
> set.
Sorry a bit late to the party.
Personally, what actually is tripping me off is that rq_unlock_irq() will end
up calling preempt_enable(), and then we do sched_preempt_enable_no_resched().
Was there an earlier preempt_disable() called up in the chain that I couldn't
figure out that's why it's okay to do the 2? Otherwise I see we have imbalanced
preempt_disable/enable.
preempt_disable()
rq_unlock_irq()
__raw_spin_unlock_irq()
local_irq_enable()
preempt_enable() // first preempt_count_dec()
sched_preempt_enable_no_resched() // second preempt_count_dec()
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
