mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Have do_idle() call __schedule() without enabling preemption
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:43:09 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170412124309.71cb3348@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170412162157.ukmhksytgrc2qx2e@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:21:57 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:41:24AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > [ tl;dr; version ]
> > 
> > Peter, In order to have synchronize_rcu_tasks() work, the idle task can
> > never be preempted. There's a very small window in
> > schedule_preempt_disable() that enables preemption, and when this
> > happens, it breaks synchronize_rcu_tasks() (see above email for
> > details).
> > 
> > Is there any reason to enable preemption, or can we simply have idle
> > call into schedule without ever allowing it to be preempted, as in my
> > patch?  
> 
> Dunno,.. this changelog should convince me, not make me do the work :-)

I didn't want you to do any work. I was wondering if you knew of any
reason. But looking into the history of the do_idle() function and
schedule_preempt_disable(), I don't see any reason. I'll post another
patch with a better change log.

> 
> > Note, it is almost good enough to just change
> > schedule_preempt_disable() to do the exact same thing, but there's one
> > instance in kernel/locking/mutex.c that calls it in a non running state.  
> 
> The point being that that must not happen because of
> sched_submit_work(), which, for idle, should not matter.

Right, and also for all the other cases that call
schedule_preempt_disable() which includes init/main.c and another
location in mutex.c that sets the task state to TASK_RUNNING just
before calling it.

But the one case where it can be something other than TASK_RUNNING,
then we need to keep the current method.

OK, I think it is fine for the idle task to never enable preemption and
I'll post a better change log patch.

Thanks!

-- Steve

      reply	other threads:[~2017-04-12 16:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-12  2:44 Steven Rostedt
2017-04-12 14:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-12 16:21   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-12 16:43     ` Steven Rostedt [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170412124309.71cb3348@gandalf.local.home \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®