* Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> Wrong. The thing is, the common case for preempt is to increment and
> decrement the count, not testing it. Exactly because we do this for
> spinlocks and for rcu read-locked regions.
Indeed, I should have realized that immediately ...
> Now, what we *could* do is to say:
>
> - we will use the high bit of the preempt count for NEED_RESCHED
>
> - when we set/clear that high bit, we *always* use atomic sequences,
> and we never change any of the other bits.
>
> - we will increment/decrement the other counters, we *only* do so on
> the local CPU, and we don't use atomic accesses.
>
> Now, the downside of that is that *because* we don't use atomic accesses
> for the inc/dec parts, the updates to the high bit can get lost. But
> because the high bit updates are done with atomics, we know that they
> won't mess up the actual counting bits, so at least the count is never
> corrupted.
>
> And the NEED_RESCHED bit getting lost would be very unusual. That
> clearly would *not* be acceptable for RT, but it it might be acceptable
> for "in the unusual case where we want to preempt a thread that was not
> preemtible, *and* we ended up having the extra unsual case that
> preemption enable ended up missing the preempt bit, we don't get
> preempted in a timely manner". It's probably impossible to ever see in
> practice, and considering that for non-RT use the PREEMPT bit is a
> "strong hint" rather than anything else, it sounds like it might be
> acceptable.
>
> It is obviously *not* going to be acceptable for the RT people, though,
> but since they do different code sequences _anyway_, that's not really
> much of an issue.
Hm, this could introduce weird artifacts for code like signal delivery
(via kick_process()), with occasional high - possibly user noticeable -
signal delivery latencies.
But we could perhaps do something else and push the overhead into
resched_task(): instead of using atomics we could use the resched IPI to
set the local preempt_count(). That way preempt_count() will only ever be
updated CPU-locally and we could merge need_resched into preempt_count()
just fine.
[ Some care has to be taken with polling-idle threads: those could simply
use another signalling mechanism, another field in task struct, no need
to abuse need_resched for that. ]
We could still _read_ the preempt count non-destructively from other CPUs,
to avoid having to send a resched IPI for already marked tasks. [ OTOH it
might be faster to never do that and assume that an IPI has to be sent in
99.9% of the cases - that would have to be re-measured. ]
Using this method we could have a really lightweight, minimal, percpu
based preempt count mechanism in all the default fastpath cases, both for
nested and for non-nested preempt_enable()s.
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/
