[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151028050314.GC11242@worktop.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:03:14 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paul Turner <commonly@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] restartable sequences: x86 ABI
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:57:05PM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> +static void rseq_sched_out(struct preempt_notifier *pn,
> + struct task_struct *next)
> +{
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
> +}
>
> static __read_mostly struct preempt_ops rseq_preempt_ops = {
> .sched_in = rseq_sched_in_nop,
> - .sched_out = rseq_sched_out_nop,
> + .sched_out = rseq_sched_out,
> };
Since we're unconditionally setting this TIF flag for these tasks, can't
we introduce something similar to the (contested) TIF_NOHZ_FULL thing
which is kept on the task indefinitely.
That avoids having the preempt notifiers and this atomic op in the
schedule path.
--
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