[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YIlBASJRMHlLBivL@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:03:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
Cc: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Hyser,Chris" <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Don Hiatt <dhiatt@...italocean.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] sched: Prepare for Core-wide rq->lock
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 06:35:36PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 5:14 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Ah, indeed so.. rq_lockp() could do with an assertion, not sure how to
> > sanely do that. Anyway, double_rq_unlock() is simple enough to fix, we
> > can simply flip the unlock()s.
> >
> > ( I'm suffering a cold and am really quite slow atm )
> >
> > How's this then?
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index f732642e3e09..3a534c0c1c46 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -290,6 +290,10 @@ static void sched_core_assert_empty(void)
> > static void __sched_core_enable(void)
> > {
> > static_branch_enable(&__sched_core_enabled);
> > + /*
> > + * Ensure raw_spin_rq_*lock*() have completed before flipping.
> > + */
> > + synchronize_sched();
>
> synchronize_sched() seems no longer exist...
Bah.. Paul, why did that go away? I realize RCU merged in the sched and
bh flavours, but I still find it expressive to use sync_sched() vs
preempt_disable().
Anyway, just use sync_rcu().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists