[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090320113943.GC11751@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:39:43 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, roland@...hat.com, efault@....de,
rjw@...k.pl, jdike@...toit.com,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] don't preempt not TASK_RUNNING tasks
* Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > The first line of attack for this problem is making
> > > > wait_task_inactive() sucks less, which shouldn't be too hard,
> > > > that unconditional 1 jiffy sleep is simply retarded.
> > >
> > > I completely agree. However, I'd like to have a non-invasive
> > > solution that can go into current and stable kernels so UML users
> > > don't need to suffer any more.
> >
> > Agreed. task_unlock_no_resched() should do that i think.
>
> I don't see how that would help.
it more clearly expresses the need there, and we already have
_no_resched API variants (we add them on an as-needed basis).
Doing:
preempt_disable();
read_lock();
...
read_unlock();
preempt_enable_no_resched();
Really just open-codes read_unlock_no_resched() and uglifies the
code.
> ptrace_stop() specifically would need read_unlock_no_resched().
> But I'm reluctant to add more spinlock functions with all their
> variants...
if you worry about backportability, we can certainly add the easy
fix too, if it's followed by the more involved fix(es).
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists