On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:17:30 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote:
> And probably not. You are probably running CONFIG_PREEMPT=y (otherwise
> RCU-tasks is trivial), so cond_resched() is a complete no-op:
>
> static inline int _cond_resched(void) { return 0; }
>
> I could make this call rcu_all_qs(), but I would not expect Peter Zijlstra
> to be at all happy with that sort of change.
>
> And the people who asked for the cond_resched() work probably aren't
> going to be happy with the resumed proliferation of cond_resched_rcu_qs().
>
> Hmmm... Grasping at straws... Could we make cond_resched() be something
> like a tracepoint and instrument them with cond_resched_rcu_qs() if the
> current RCU-tasks grace period ran for more that (say) a minute of its
> ten-minute stall-warning span?
>
Instead of monkeying with cond_resched(), since this is "special" code,
why don't I just have that code call it directly?
cond_resched();
rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch(current);
-- Steve
