Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched/preempt: fix cond_resched_lock() and cond_resched_softirq()

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:23:27PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> These functions check should_resched() before unlocking spinlock/bh-enable:
> preempt_count always non-zero => should_resched() always returns false.
> cond_resched_lock() works iff spin_needbreak is set.
> 
> This patch adds argument "preempt_offset" to should_resched() add
> rearranges preempt_count offset constants for that:
> 
> PREEMPT_OFFSET - offset after preempt_disable() (0 if CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n)
> PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET - offset after spin_lock() (alias for PREEMPT_OFFSET)
> SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET - offset after local_bh_distable()
> SOFTIRQ_LOCK_OFFSET - offset after spin_lock_bh()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>

Sorry, but it doesn't apply anymore because of that whole
pagefault_disable() muck we merged.

> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> index 48d3c5d2ecc9..6e73b74c0c60 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> @@ -2177,7 +2177,7 @@ static int kvmppc_run_vcpu(struct kvm_run *kvm_run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		vc->runner = vcpu;
>  		if (n_ceded == vc->n_runnable) {
>  			kvmppc_vcore_blocked(vc);
> -		} else if (should_resched()) {
> +		} else if (should_resched(PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET)) {

I'm thinking this wants to be: need_resched() ?

>  			vc->vcore_state = VCORE_PREEMPT;
>  			/* Let something else run */
>  			cond_resched_lock(&vc->lock);

> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
> index eb6f9e6c3075..e91fb799a6da 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static __always_inline bool __preempt_count_dec_and_test(void)
>  /*
>   * Returns true when we need to resched and can (barring IRQ state).
>   */
> -static __always_inline bool should_resched(void)
> +static __always_inline bool should_resched(int offset)
>  {
> -	return unlikely(!preempt_count() && tif_need_resched());
> +	return unlikely(preempt_count() == offset && tif_need_resched());
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT

So the reason I held off on this patch for a wee bit is because I don't
like the should_resched() change you did; although I fully understand
why you did it.

That said, I could not come up with anything better either and I suppose
that once we fix that ppc-kvm user, there really isn't a user left
outside of core code and thus we can deal with a slightly dangerous
function.

I did not really look, but it would be good if we could also get rid of
the Xen usage.