[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160331065419.GA19297@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:54:19 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] nohz: Convert tick dependency mask to atomic_t
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 03:05:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Harmonizing thread_info::flags does not look easy, given how much assembly code
> > > > > accesses this field.
> > > >
> > > > It might not be too bad.
> > > >
> > > > For 32-bit architectures (which is still most of them), it's just a
> > > >
> > > > unsigned int/long -> atomic_t
> > > >
> > > > and for 64-bit architectures you end up with three choices:
> > > >
> > > > - it's already 32-bit (alpha, ia64, x86):
> > > >
> > > > unsigned int -> atomic_t
> > > >
> > > > - little-endian long:
> > > >
> > > > atomic_t flags
> > > > unsigned int padding;
> > > >
> > > > - big-endian long (only powerpc? Maybe there's a big-endian MIPS still?)
> > > >
> > > > unsigned int padding;
> > > > atomic_t flags;
> > >
> > > Hm, that indeed sounds fairly nice and doable - I thought some architectures do
> > > have a task flag above bit 31, but that does not appear to be so ...
> > >
> > > Right now we seem to have 27 bits defined in include/linux/sched.h, with 5 more
> > > bits left for the future. Here's their current usage histogram in the kernel
> > > source:
> > >
> > > PF_KTHREAD : 68
> > > PF_MEMALLOC : 65
> >
> > Argh, my reading comprehension skills suck today.
> >
> > That's a totally useless analysis of task_struct::flags, while we want to convert
> > thread_info::flags...
>
> Actually we want to convert that one too :-)
> In fact I planned to start there.
Sounds good to me! I also volunteer the x86 architecture to be the guinea pig to
convert thread_info::flags to atomic_t ;-) [*]
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists