[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e47e8298-af21-64fa-eac3-6fdfbf11c502@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:54:09 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Avoid pointless schedule_preempt_irq() invocations
On 17/07/2019 09:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> When preempt_count is zero on return from interrupt then
> schedule_preempt_irq() is invoked even if TIF_NEED_RESCHED is not set.
>
> That does not make sense because schedule_preempt_irq() has to go through a
> full __schedule() for nothing in that case.
>
> Check TIF_NEED_RESCHED and invoke schedule_preempt_irq() only if set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Don't we have NEED_RESCHED squashed into preempt count?
396244692232 ("arm64: preempt: Provide our own implementation of asm/preempt.h")
So the existing check should cover that, unless I'm missing something?
> ---
> Found while staring at some RT wrecakge in that area.
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -680,6 +680,10 @@ alternative_if ARM64_HAS_IRQ_PRIO_MASKIN
> orr x24, x24, x0
> alternative_else_nop_endif
> cbnz x24, 1f // preempt count != 0 || NMI return path
> +
> + ldr x0, [tsk, #TSK_TI_FLAGS] // get flags
> + tbz x0, #TIF_NEED_RESCHED, 1f // needs rescheduling?
> +
> bl preempt_schedule_irq // irq en/disable is done inside
> 1:
> #endif
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists