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 S1170076AbdDXMnb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:43:31 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:37330 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1169295AbdDXMnX (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:43:23 -0400
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:43:18 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt
 balancing logic
Message-ID: <20170424084318.2d03700f@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20170424085154.d6ny6vmbmuaoxiln@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170421224929.1a4bbeec@gandalf.local.home>
        <20170424085154.d6ny6vmbmuaoxiln@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:51:54 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > When a CPU schedules in a lower priority task and wants to make sure
> > overloaded CPUs know about it. It increments the rto_loop_next. Then it does
> > an atomic_inc_return() on rto_loop_start. If the returned value is not "1",
> > then it does atomic_dec() on rt_loop_start and returns. If the value is "1",
> > then it will take the rto_lock to synchronize with a possible IPI being sent
> > around to the overloaded CPUs.  
> 
> > +	start = atomic_inc_return(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);
> > +	if (start != 1)
> > +		goto out;  
> 
> > +out:
> > +	atomic_dec(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);  
> 
> 
> Did you just write a very expensive test-and-set trylock?

Probably. I didn't know we had a generic one. Where is it?

$ git grep test_and_set |grep trylock
fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c:#define trylock_metapage(mp) test_and_set_bit_lock(META_locked, &(mp)->flag)

I don't think the above is what you mean.

-- Steve