[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180709130227.GQ2512@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:02:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, mhillenb@...zon.de,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs
requested
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:55:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:34:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > But KVM defeats this by checking need_resched() before invoking
> > cond_resched().
>
> That's not wrong or even uncommon I think.
In fact, I think we recently put that pattern in crypto code in order to
break up very long kernel_fpu sections.
Note that you also 'broke' cond_resched_lock() as that no longer matches
cond_resched().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists