[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1247237995.7529.43.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:59:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Move the sleeping while atomic checks early
in cond_resched()
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:49 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> index 0cb0d8d..e357dc7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -2279,11 +2279,13 @@ extern int _cond_resched(void);
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL
> static inline int cond_resched(void)
> {
> + might_sleep();
> return 0;
> }
> #else
> static inline int cond_resched(void)
> {
> + might_sleep();
> return _cond_resched();
> }
> #endif
# define might_resched() _cond_resched()
# define might_sleep() \
do { __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__); might_resched(); } while (0)
Doesn't seem to make it any better that, but yeah, moving that
__might_sleep() did occur to me earlier today when I touched that code.
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 87ecac1..c22804b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -6605,9 +6605,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
>
> static void __cond_resched(void)
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP
> - __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
> -#endif
> /*
> * The BKS might be reacquired before we have dropped
> * PREEMPT_ACTIVE, which could trigger a second
--
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