[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xyhhhju.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:07:49 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Ankur Arora
<ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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, 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, Arnd Bergmann
<arnd@...db.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/30] thread_info: tif_need_resched() now takes
resched_t as param
On Tue, Feb 20 2024 at 14:21, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>>> static __always_inline bool tif_need_resched_lazy(void)
>>> {
>>> return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) &&
>>> __tif_need_resched(TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY);
>>> }
>>
>> Yes please.
>
> As I wrote to Mark in the sibling subthread, I think exposing
> the lazy variants outside of the scheduler isn't really needed.
But having a proper wrapper inline in the scheduler code (local header)
makes still a lot of sense.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists