[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201008174351.GA14207@fuller.cnet>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:43:51 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] nohz: only wakeup a single target cpu when kicking a
task
On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 10:59:40AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 03:01:52PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > +static void tick_nohz_kick_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > + int cpu = task_cpu(tsk);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the task concurrently migrates to another cpu,
> > + * we guarantee it sees the new tick dependency upon
> > + * schedule.
> > + *
> > + *
> > + * set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> > + * STORE p->cpu = @cpu
> > + * __schedule() (switch to task 'p')
> > + * LOCK rq->lock
> > + * smp_mb__after_spin_lock() STORE p->tick_dep_mask
> > + * tick_nohz_task_switch() smp_mb() (atomic_fetch_or())
> > + * LOAD p->tick_dep_mask LOAD p->cpu
> > + */
> > +
> > + preempt_disable();
>
> Pure question: is preempt_disable() required here? Same question to
> tick_nohz_full_kick_all().
Hi Peter,
Don't see why: irq_queue_work_on() disables preemption if necessary.
>
> > + if (cpu_online(cpu))
> > + tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(cpu);
> > + preempt_enable();
> > +}
>
> --
> Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists