On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:50:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Frederic Weisbecker
> <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Such as:
>
> So I like your patch, but quite frankly, can we go one step further?
>
> Look at the callers of __schedule().
>
> EVERY SINGLE ONE now has that loop around it that goes along the lines of
>
> do {
> .. disable preemption somehow ..
> __schedule();
> ...enable preemption without scheduling ..
> } while (need_resced());
>
> except for one - the regular "schedule()" function.
>
> Furthermore, look inside __schedule() itself: it has the same loop,
> except with a count of one.
>
> So I would suggest going the extra mile, and
> - remove the loop from __schedule() itself
That sounds like a good idea. Unless the loop inside __schedule()
is very frequent and sensitive enough to show visible overhead if we
force it to pass through the preemp_count_add/sub() and local_irq_*()
operations in the preempt_schedule_*() functions.
I suspect it's not, so I'm cooking that patch.
> - add the same loop as everywhere else to "schedule()"
Right. I'm doing that too.
> IOW, just make this "you have to loop and disable preemption" thing be
> a rule that __schedule() can depend on.
Ok. It would be nice if we could have a common function that does the loop
and PREEMPT_ACTIVE increments. But the variable code is inside that loop
so that's only factorizable with a function pointer (no-go in that fast-path)
or a macro that would make things even worse and ugly.
So I think I'll just keep all those loops explicit.
Thanks.
> Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
