[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1371042443.9844.255.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:07:23 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spin_unlock*_no_resched()
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I absolutely hate this API because people can (and invariably will)
> abuse it; much like they did/do preempt_enable_no_resched().
Me too.
>
> IIRC Thomas even maps preempt_enable_no_resched() to preempt_enable() in
> -rt to make sure we don't miss preemption points due to stupidity.
>
> He converted the 'few' sane sites to use schedule_preempt_disabled(). In
> that vein, does it make sense to introduce schedule_spin_locked()?
>
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read this patch. This is a
strict policy that we should enforce and not let individual developers
implement. Yes, a schedule_spin_unlock() would work nicely. The API will
enforce the two to be used together. Otherwise, I can envision seeing
things like:
preempt_disable();
[...]
spin_lock(x);
spin_unlock_no_resched(x);
[...]
preempt_enable();
And developers having no idea why the above is broken. Although, I would
say the above is broken for other reasons, but I was just using that to
show the craziness such an API would give to us.
-- Steve
--
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