On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 15:40 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > This patch disables preemption during complete(), since we call
> > > schedule() directly afterwards, so it will correctly enter
> > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. This speeds up kthread creation/binding during
> > > cpu hotplug significantly.
>
> tglx has patches that make the kthread create/destroy stuff from hotplug
> go away.. that seems like the better approach.
Right. That cpu hotplug setup/teardown stuff is ugly.
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Disable preemption so we enter TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE after
> > > + * complete() instead of possibly being preempted. This speeds
> > > + * up clients that do a kthread_bind() directly after
> > > + * creation.
> > > + */
> > > + preempt_disable();
> >
> > Shouldn't this happen before setting current state to UNINTERRUPTIBLE?
> > What prevents preemption happening right above preempt_disable()?
>
> Nothing, it also doesn't matter that much, you could get preempted right
> before preempt_disable() and end up in the same place.
>
> The main thing is avoiding the wakeup preemption from the complete()
> because we're going to sleep right after anyway.
>
> The comment doesn't really make that clear.
Right, the comment is crap. It has nothing to do with kthread_bind()
and stuff. The whole purpose is to avoid the pointless preemption
after wakeup.
> > > complete(&create->done);
> > > + preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > > +
> > > schedule();
>
> Other than that it seems fine, although I know tglx just loves new
> preempt_enable_no_resched() sites ;-)
The ones which are immediately followed by a call to schedule() are at
least not causing any headache for RT :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
