From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965322AbcIWIo6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 04:44:58 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:59604 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S964961AbcIWIoy (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 04:44:54 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:44:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>, hpa@zytor.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/core: Avoid _cond_resched() for PREEMPT=y
Message-ID: <20160923084442.GC5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <tip-35a773a07926a22bf19d77ee00024522279c4e68@git.kernel.org>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.1609221421290.12217@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <20160922184228.GA5012@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160922202817.GT14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160922202817.GT14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:28:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:42:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:25:01PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > I've found a document that says that cond_resched() is needed on
> > > preemptible kernels to mark RCU quiescent states:
> > > 
> > > https://lwn.net/Articles/603252/
> > > 
> > > Paul, is cond_resched() still needed on current RCU implementation? Or not?
> > 
> > No, we ripped that out. See 4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of
> > cond_resched() checks for RCU")
> 
> I would instead say that we changed the algorithm to reduce the overhead
> in the common case, but yes, this commit did change things quite a bit.

Sure, but critical point (for this discussion) is that cond_resched() no
longer implies anything RCU, it really only is a voluntary reschedule
point.