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 S965477AbcIWJQC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 05:16:02 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:40682 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S935144AbcIWJP5 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 05:15:57 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:13:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@redhat.com, Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] dm: Remove dm_bufio_cond_resched()
In-Reply-To: <20160923090524.GE5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609231111010.5640@nanos>
References: <20160913084520.GA5012@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160913133959.GA22833@redhat.com> <20160919105325.GW5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1609221645510.4447@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609222257050.5640@nanos> <20160923073435.GL2794@worktop> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609230956540.5640@nanos> <20160923090524.GE5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:00:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > It is, might_sleep() implies might_resched(). In fact, that's all what
> > > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is, make the might_sleep() debug test imply a resched
> > > point.
> > 
> > Grr, how intuitive - NOT!
> 
> No, it actually makes sense. Because you 'obviously' only call
> might_sleep() in contexts that should be able to sleep (if not, it'll
> holler). So they're already placed right for preemption.

I disagree. might_sleep() is commonly known as a debug mechanism and it
existed before the preemption stuff went in. So the easy way to sprinkle
preemption points into the kernel was to hijack might_sleep(). I know it's
historical, but that doesnt make it any more intuitive.

Thanks,

	tglx