[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120503220050.e91938418f882b4075526e08@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:00:50 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com,
mtosatti@...hat.com, yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: make callers check lock contention for
cond_resched_lock()
On Thu, 03 May 2012 14:29:10 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 21:22 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > Although the real use case is out of this RFC patch, we are now discussing
> > a case in which we may hold a spin_lock for long time, ms order, depending
> > on workload; and in that case, other threads -- VCPU threads -- should be
> > given higher priority for that problematic lock.
>
> Firstly, if you can hold a lock that long, it shouldn't be a spinlock,
I agree with you in principle, but isn't cond_resched_lock() there for that?
> secondly why isn't TIF_RESCHED being set if its running that long? That
> should still make cond_resched_lock() break.
I see.
I did some tests using spin_is_contended() and need_resched() and saw
that need_resched() was called as often as spin_is_contended(), so
experimentally I understand your point.
But as I could not see why spin_needbreak() was differently implemented
depending on CONFIG_PREEMPT, I wanted to understand the meaning.
Thanks,
Takuya
--
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