[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250811121536.taFIcCHt@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:15:36 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
David Vernet <dvernet@...a.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] sched: restore the behavior of put_task_struct()
for non-rt
On 2025-08-11 13:21:20 [+0200], Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/11, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> > On 2025-08-11 12:40:34 [+0200], Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > What exactly do you think we could do regardless of PREEMPT_RT?
> >
> > Do what we do now and have one free path for task_struct regardless if
> > PREEMPT_RT is enabled or not. The one via RCU which delays the freeing
> > until after the grace period.
>
> Ah, got it. I won't really argue, but...
>
> call_rcu() is not free, it obviously delays free_task/etc. To me this
> !PREEMPT_RT optimization makes sense.
>
> But lets forget it for the moment. This patch
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/aGvTz5VaPFyj0pBV@uudg.org
> [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set
>
> removed that optimization by mistake, this doesn't even match the changelog.
> I think it should be restored, and this is what the new patch from Luis does.
>
> Then we can discuss this all again and possibly remove it, but this
> should be explicitly documented in the changelog.
Certainly. I am not saying we should keep it as is. The added comment
appears wrong but I am all for getting this merged and then sorting out
later.
Thank you for spotting this ;)
> Oleg.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists