[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130911180541.GR31370@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:05:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] sched: Add NEED_RESCHED to the preempt_count
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:35:08AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I bet that this improves cross-cpu wakeup latency, too -- the old code
> would presumably wake up the cpu and then immediately interrupt it.
Yeah,. its what clued Mike in to there being a problem.
> It might be nice to rename one or both of need_resched and
> test_need_resched, though -- the difference is somewhat inscrutable.
I agreed, I've just been unable to come up with anything sane.
The best I could come up with is renaming
{set,clear,test}_need_resched() to {}_tif_need_resched(), so we then end
up with test_tif_need_resched(), which is slightly more different from
need_resched().
Ideas?
--
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