On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I absolutely hate this API because people can (and invariably will)
> abuse it; much like they did/do preempt_enable_no_resched().
Me too.
>
> IIRC Thomas even maps preempt_enable_no_resched() to preempt_enable() in
> -rt to make sure we don't miss preemption points due to stupidity.
>
> He converted the 'few' sane sites to use schedule_preempt_disabled(). In
> that vein, does it make sense to introduce schedule_spin_locked()?
>
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read this patch. This is a
strict policy that we should enforce and not let individual developers
implement. Yes, a schedule_spin_unlock() would work nicely. The API will
enforce the two to be used together. Otherwise, I can envision seeing
things like:
preempt_disable();
[...]
spin_lock(x);
spin_unlock_no_resched(x);
[...]
preempt_enable();
And developers having no idea why the above is broken. Although, I would
say the above is broken for other reasons, but I was just using that to
show the craziness such an API would give to us.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
