[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150219231141.GE15980@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:11:41 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add sched_task_call()
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:26:09PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > How about with a TIF_IN_USERSPACE thread flag? It could be cleared/set
> > right at the border. Then for running tasks it's as simple as:
> >
> > if (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_IN_USERSPACE))
> > klp_switch_task_universe(task);
>
> That's in principle what CONTEXT_TRACKING is doing, i.e. the condition
> we'd be interested in would be
>
> __this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state) == IN_USER
>
> But it has overhead.
Yeah, that does seem to pretty much do what we want. Unfortunately it
has a much higher overhead than just setting a thread flag.
And from the Kconfig description for CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE, which would
enable it on all CPUs during boot, "this option brings an overhead that
you don't want in production."
Maybe that code needs a rewrite to rely on a thread flag instead. Then
we could use it too.
--
Josh
--
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