[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sf1o8oh2.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:26:17 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, willy@...radead.org,
mgorman@...e.de, jpoimboe@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, bristot@...nel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com,
mattst88@...il.com, krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
David.Laight@...LAB.COM, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, Ankur Arora
<ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/30] sched: *_tsk_need_resched() now takes resched_t
as param
On Mon, Feb 12 2024 at 21:55, Ankur Arora wrote:
The subject line reads odd...
> -static inline bool test_tsk_need_resched(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +static inline bool test_tsk_need_resched(struct task_struct *tsk, resched_t rs)
> {
> - return unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk,TIF_NEED_RESCHED));
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) || rs == NR_now)
> + return unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, tif_resched(rs)));
> + else
> + return false;
> }
Same like the others. This wants wrappers with now/lazy.
> /*
> @@ -2104,7 +2121,8 @@ static __always_inline bool need_resched(void)
>
> static __always_inline bool need_resched_lazy(void)
> {
> - return unlikely(tif_need_resched(NR_lazy));
> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) &&
> + unlikely(tif_need_resched(NR_lazy));
Shouldn't this be folded into the patch which adds need_resched_lazy()?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists