[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241009091401.GL17263@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:14:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, ankur.a.arora@...cle.com,
efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched: Add Lazy preemption model
On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 10:50:21AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-10-07 09:46:11 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -1103,6 +1106,32 @@ void resched_curr(struct rq *rq)
> …
> > +static __always_inline int tif_need_resched_lazy(void)
>
> The naming is a bit confusing here because tif_need_resched() checks if
> the TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set while this returns the proper TIF bit
> instead.
Right you are; naming things be hard. How about: get_lazy_tif_bit() ?
There's only the single user anyway.
> > +{
> > + if (dynamic_preempt_lazy())
> > + return TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY;
> > +
> > + return TIF_NEED_RESCHED;
> > +}
>
> Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists