[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140522130931.GV13658@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:09:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] sched,idle: need resched polling rework
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 4ea7b3f1a087..a5da85fb3570 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -546,12 +546,38 @@ static bool set_nr_and_not_polling(struct task_struct *p)
> struct thread_info *ti = task_thread_info(p);
> return !(fetch_or(&ti->flags, _TIF_NEED_RESCHED) & _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG);
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * Atomically set TIF_NEED_RESCHED if TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG is set.
> + */
> +static bool set_nr_if_polling(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct thread_info *ti = task_thread_info(p);
> + typeof(ti->flags) old, val = ti->flags;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + if (!(val & _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG))
> + return false;
> + if (val & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED)
> + return true;
Hmm, I think this is racy, false would be safer. If its already set we
might already be past the sched_ttwu_pending() invocation, while if its
clear and we're the one to set it, we're guaranteed not.
> + old = cmpxchg(&ti->flags, val, val | _TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
> + if (old == val)
> + return true;
> + val = old;
> + }
> +}
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists