[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090708005000.GA12380@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:50:00 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] sched: Remove SYSTEM_RUNNING checks from
cond_resched*()
On 07/08, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
> but I'm curious if removing the checks makes sense
> nowadays.
...
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -6560,8 +6560,7 @@ static void __cond_resched(void)
>
> int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> {
> - if (need_resched() && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE) &&
> - system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
> + if (need_resched() && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)) {
> __cond_resched();
> return 1;
> }
and, with CONFIG_PREEMPT preempt_schedule() does not check system_state,
so it looks really strange cond_resched() does check SYSTEM_RUNNING.
debug_smp_processor_id() looks strange too:
/*
* It is valid to assume CPU-locality during early bootup:
*/
if (system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)
goto out;
this doesn't look right, smp_init() is called before we set
SYSTEM_RUNNING.
Hmm, and
/*
* Kernel threads bound to a single CPU can safely use
* smp_processor_id():
*/
if (cpumask_equal(¤t->cpus_allowed, cpumask_of(this_cpu)))
goto out;
perhaps this should use PF_THREAD_BOUND ?
Oleg.
--
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