On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:30:07AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 02:21:51PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > The whole rcu_note_context_switch() in run_ksoftirqd() is silly. > > > > > > > > cond_resched() > > > > __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE); > > > > > > > > __schedule(); > > > > preempt_disable(); > > > > rcu_note_context_switch(); > > > > .... > > > > > > > > __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE); > > > > > > I agree that if should_resched() returns true as assumed above, then there > > > is no point to invoking rcu_note_context_switch(). However, the case that > > > this code applies to is when should_resched() returns false, but RCU is > > > waiting for a quiescent state from the current CPU. In that case, > > > cond_resched() won't do anything for RCU, and we do need the > > > rcu_note_context_switch(). > > > > So this should be: > > > > if (!cond_resched()) { > preempt_disable(); > > rcu_note_context_switch(); > preempt_enable(); > } > > > > Hmm? > > Going forward, yes, and cond_resched_rcu_qs() in fact does something > very similar. For backporting, which is what this patch is for, we are > preserving the same double-quiescent-state behavior that existed earlier, > meaning minimal perturbation of old releases. > > Seem reasonable, or do you really feel strongly about pushing this > optimization into -stable?
No. 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/