[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72cc0b5f-b1e6-43d4-aaac-ef3ff2e20a01@efficios.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:07:22 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>, Michael Jeanson
<mjeanson@...icios.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 20/20] sched/mmcid: Switch over to the new mechanism
On 2025-10-29 09:09, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> @@ -10702,10 +10758,43 @@ void sched_mm_cid_exit(struct task_struc
>
> if (!mm || !t->mm_cid.active)
> return;
> + /*
> + * Ensure that only one instance is doing MM CID operations within
> + * a MM. The common case is uncontended. The rare fixup case adds
> + * some overhead.
> + */
> + scoped_guard(mutex, &mm->mm_cid.mutex) {
When exiting from a mm where mm->mm_cid.users == 1 (read with
READ_ONCE()), can we do this without holding the mutex as an
optimization ?
> + * Synchronize eventally pending work to ensure that there are no
eventually
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists