* Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > The below boots to wanting to mount a root filesystem with
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT=y using kvm -smp 4.
>
> But doesn't work in general? Or you just never tested?
(I think Peter never tested it on real hw - this is an RFC patch to show
the concept .)
> > Adding TIF_NEED_RESCHED into the preempt count would allow a single
> > test in preempt_check_resched() instead of still needing the TI.
> > Removing PREEMPT_ACTIVE from preempt count should allow us to get rid
> > of ti::preempt_count altogether.
> >
> > The only problem with TIF_NEED_RESCHED is that its cross-cpu which
> > would make the entire thing atomic which would suck donkey balls so
> > maybe we need two separate per-cpu variables?
>
> Agreed. Making it atomic would suck, and cancel all advantages of the
> better code generation to access it. Good point.
We could still have the advantages of NEED_RESCHED in preempt_count() by
realizing that we only rarely actually set/clear need_resched and mostly
read it from the highest freq user, the preempt_enable() check.
So we could have it atomic, but do atomic_read() in the preempt_enable()
hotpath which wouldn't suck donkey balls, right?
That would allow a really sweet preempt_enable() fastpath, on x86 at
least.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
