[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxBAFMxAsSvgOcVuWy4FWH77E4NT8M3SYvQzxGBJ_qkHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:11:23 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86: Speed up ___preempt_schedule*() by using THUNK helpers
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> The real fix would appear to be to use
> "preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace()", which your patch did, but
> without the loop.
Actually, the real fix would be to not be stupid, and just make the
code do something like
> if (likely(!preemptible()))
> return;
>
> __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> prev_ctx = exception_enter();
>
> __schedule();
>
> exception_exit(prev_ctx);
> __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
and *not* enable preemption around the scheduling at all. The whole
enable and then re-disable seems entirely broken, and comes from the
code using "preempt_schedule()" which doesn't work while preemption is
disabled. So don't do that then.
No?
Linus
--
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