[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150128154637.GI23038@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:46:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched: Account PREEMPT_ACTIVE context as atomic
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:24:12AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> PREEMPT_ACTIVE implies non-preemptible context and thus atomic context
> despite what in_atomic*() APIs reports about it. These functions
> shouldn't ignore this value like they are currently doing.
>
> It appears that these APIs were ignoring PREEMPT_ACTIVE in order to
> ease the check in schedule_debug(). Meanwhile it is sufficient to rely
> on PREEMPT_ACTIVE in order to disable preemption in __schedule().
>
> So lets fix the in_atomic*() APIs and simplify the preempt count ops
> on __schedule() callers.
So what I think the history is here is that PREEMPT_ACTIVE is/was seen
as a flag, protecting recursion, not so much a preempt-disable.
By doing this, you loose that separation.
Note that (at least on x86) we have another flag in the preempt count.
And I don't think the generated code really changes, the only difference
is the value added/subtracted and that's an encoded immediate I think.
--
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