On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 19:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
> >
> > When exceptions or irq are about to resume userspace, if
> > the task needs to be rescheduled, the arch low level code
> > calls schedule() directly.
> >
> > At that time we may be in extended quiescent state from RCU
> > POV: the exception is not anymore protected inside
> > rcu_user_exit() - rcu_user_enter() and the irq has called
> > rcu_irq_exit() already.
> >
> > Create a new API schedule_user() that calls schedule() inside
> > rcu_user_exit()-rcu_user_enter() in order to protect it. Archs
> > will need to rely on it now to implement user preemption safely.
>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 0bd599b..e841dfc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -3463,6 +3463,13 @@ asmlinkage void __sched schedule(void)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule);
> >
> > +asmlinkage void __sched schedule_user(void)
> > +{
> > + rcu_user_exit();
> > + schedule();
> > + rcu_user_enter();
> > +}
>
>
> OK, so colour me unconvinced.. why are we doing this?
>
> Typically when we call schedule nr_running != 1 (we need current to be
> running and a possible target to switch to).
>
> So I'd prefer to simply have schedule() disable all this adaptive tick
> nonsense and leave it at that.
In fact, the only way to get here is through ttwu(), which would have
done the nr_running increment and should have disabled all this adaptive
stuff.
So again,.. why?
--
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/
