[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160811181132.GD4214@lerouge>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:11:33 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 04/14] task_isolation: add initial support
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:29:46PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> +/*
> + * Each time we try to prepare for return to userspace in a process
> + * with task isolation enabled, we run this code to quiesce whatever
> + * subsystems we can readily quiesce to avoid later interrupts.
> + */
> +void task_isolation_enter(void)
> +{
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled());
> +
> + /* Drain the pagevecs to avoid unnecessary IPI flushes later. */
> + lru_add_drain();
> +
> + /* Quieten the vmstat worker so it won't interrupt us. */
> + quiet_vmstat_sync();
So, this is going to be called everytime we resume to userspace
while in task isolation mode, right?
Do we need to quiesce vmstat everytime before entering userspace?
I thought that vmstat only need to be offlined once and for all?
And how about lru?
> +
> + /*
> + * Request rescheduling unless we are in full dynticks mode.
> + * We would eventually get pre-empted without this, and if
> + * there's another task waiting, it would run; but by
> + * explicitly requesting the reschedule, we may reduce the
> + * latency. We could directly call schedule() here as well,
> + * but since our caller is the standard place where schedule()
> + * is called, we defer to the caller.
> + *
> + * A more substantive approach here would be to use a struct
> + * completion here explicitly, and complete it when we shut
> + * down dynticks, but since we presumably have nothing better
> + * to do on this core anyway, just spinning seems plausible.
> + */
> + if (!tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
> + set_tsk_need_resched(current);
Again, that won't help :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists