[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <528D180A.5050209@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:14:02 +0200
From: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, Chris Leech <christopher.leech@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rui.zhang@...el.com,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] sched: Clean up preempt_enable_no_resched() abuse
On 20/11/2013 20:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There are options (CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) that allow scheduling while
> holding rcu_read_lock().
>
> Also, preempt_enable() only schedules when its possible to schedule, so
> calling it when you know you cannot schedule is no issue.
>
I have no issue with you changing busy_loop_us_clock() to use a regular
preempt enable.
I think that we still need to only do this if config preempt debug
is on. When it's off we should use the alternate implementation.
We are silencing a warning, but this is a performance critical path,
and we think we know what we are doing.
I tried to explain this in the comments. If you think my comments are
not clear enough, I'm open to suggestions.
Cheers,
Eliezer
--
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