[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUysDCxNTBJ1tkxjDLD+xV56kh-SYCyM8MLgvo9PdXk7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 07:46:54 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] sched,idle: Clear polling before descheduling the
idle thread
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 05:29:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> @@ -229,6 +234,8 @@ static void cpu_idle_loop(void)
>> */
>> preempt_set_need_resched();
>> tick_nohz_idle_exit();
>> + __current_clr_polling();
>> + smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
>
> barriers always need a comment, and I'm not entirely sure why you put
> this one here.
Will do.
I actually suspect that the barrier isn't needed in this patch, but it
will be needed one patch later when there's a sched_ttwu_pending after
the barrier. I'll move this to the next patch and add a comment.
The reason that the barrier is needed is that polling needs to be
visibly cleared before checking for queued ttwu tasks, because
otherwise another CPU could queue a ttwu task, do set_nr_if_polling,
and get a true return value *after* sched_ttwu_pending because the CPU
decided to defer the clear_bit.
--Andy
--
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