[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+et48gk7+gsJb5Wmp6pGuU3t=Yg5t73sKxPJOdbu8K8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:47:18 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:22 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> 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..
Let me do few experiments then.
We will fix it up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists