[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181019082202.GB3121@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:22:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, daniel@...earbox.net,
guro@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:00:53PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Another example is __BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY(), which also uses
> > > preempt_enable_no_resched().
> >
> > Alexei, I think this code is just wrong.
>
> why 'just wrong' ?
Because you lost a preemption point, this is a no-no.
>
> > Do you know why it uses
> > preempt_enable_no_resched()?
>
> dont recall precisely.
> we could be preemptable at the point where macro is called.
> I think the goal of no_resched was to avoid adding scheduling points
> where they didn't exist before just because a prog ran for few nsec.
> May be Daniel or Roman remember.
No, you did the exact opposite, where there previously was a preemption,
you just ate it. The band saw didn't get stopped in time, you loose your
hand etc..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists