On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:42 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Mike Galbraith <efa...@gmx.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 <efa...@gmx.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...
> >
> >
> > * 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.
Ah, but the kworker _is_ spinning on a 'lock' or sorts, starving the
'owner', ergo this polling loop fails the 'may be nice' litmus test.
No polling loop is safe without a guarantee that the polling thread
cannot block the loop breaking event.
-Mike
