From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] net_sched: replace yield() with cond_resched()
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 03:54:19 +0200
Message-ID: <1491443659.4718.57.camel@gmx.de>
References: <1491357139-27108-1-git-send-email-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
         <1491364545.4536.90.camel@gmx.de>
         <CAM_iQpXpZjpS1ZG7hH-52jt41FzzyMZ0rss9PauaSD54XSQiXQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <1491371790.4536.151.camel@gmx.de>
         <CAM_iQpUa-w9k4EFafQCEpbmR0PANwkLieYMxGwi59373h8jHUg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:57447 "EHLO mout.gmx.net"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1756315AbdDFByW (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:54:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpUa-w9k4EFafQCEpbmR0PANwkLieYMxGwi59373h8jHUg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:42 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:19 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > > That won't help, cond_resched() has the same impact upon a lone
> > > > SCHED_FIFO task as yield() does.. none.
> > > 
> > > Hmm? In the comment you quote:
> > > 
> > >  * If you want to use yield() to wait for something, use wait_event().
> > >  * If you want to use yield() to be 'nice' for others, use cond_resched().
> > > 
> > > So if cond_resched() doesn't help, why this misleading comment?
> > 
> > This is not an oh let's be nice guys thing, it's a perfect match of...
> > 
> > 
> >  * while (!event)
> >  *      yield();
> > (/copy/paste>
> > 
> > ..get off the CPU until this happens thing.  With nobody to yield the C
> > PU to, some_qdisc_is_busy() will remain true forever more.
> 
> 
> This is exactly the misleading part, a while-loop waiting for an event
> can always be a be-nice-for-others thing, because if not we can just
> spin as a spinlock.

Ah, but the kworker _is_ spinning on a 'lock' or sorts, starving the
'owner', ergo this polling loop fails the 'may be nice' litmus test. 
 No polling loop is safe without a guarantee that the polling thread
cannot block the loop breaking event.

	-Mike