From: anton wilson <anton.wilson@camotion.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RML pre-emptive 2.4.19-ac2 with O(1)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:55:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200207231556.LAA15086@test-area.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207231048180.2980-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Strangely enough I'm getting processes exiting with preemption count of 1
when I use my patch.
What causes such a problem?
Anton
=================================================================
diff -ru linux-2.4.19-rc2/kernel/sched.c linux/kernel/sched.c
--- linux-2.4.19-rc2/kernel/sched.c Mon Jul 22 19:02:43 2002
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c Tue Jul 23 09:44:54 2002
@@ -345,11 +345,13 @@
#if CONFIG_SMP
int need_resched;
+ preempt_disable();
need_resched = p->need_resched;
wmb();
set_tsk_need_resched(p);
if (!need_resched && (p->cpu != smp_processor_id()))
smp_send_reschedule(p->cpu);
+ preempt_enable();
#else
set_tsk_need_resched(p);
#endif
@@ -367,6 +369,7 @@
runqueue_t *rq;
repeat:
+ preempt_disable();
rq = task_rq(p);
if (unlikely(task_running(rq, p))) {
cpu_relax();
@@ -375,14 +378,17 @@
* a preemption point - we are busy-waiting
* anyway.
*/
+ preempt_enable();
goto repeat;
}
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
if (unlikely(task_running(rq, p))) {
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
+ preempt_enable();
goto repeat;
}
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
+ preempt_enable();
}
#endif
@@ -519,7 +525,7 @@
p->sleep_avg) / (EXIT_WEIGHT + 1);
}
-#if CONFIG_SMP
+#if CONFIG_SMP || CONFIG_PREEMPT
asmlinkage void schedule_tail(task_t *prev)
{
finish_arch_switch(this_rq(), prev);
@@ -1078,6 +1084,7 @@
BUG();
need_resched:
+ preempt_disable();
prev = current;
rq = this_rq();
@@ -1085,6 +1092,14 @@
prev->sleep_timestamp = jiffies;
spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
+ /*
+ * entering from preempt_schedule, off a kernel preemption,
+ * go straight to picking the next task.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(preempt_get_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE))
+ goto pick_next_task;
+#endif
switch (prev->state) {
case TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE:
if (unlikely(signal_pending(prev))) {
@@ -1096,9 +1111,8 @@
case TASK_RUNNING:
;
}
-#if CONFIG_SMP
+
pick_next_task:
-#endif
if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) {
#if CONFIG_SMP
load_balance(rq, 1);
@@ -1151,13 +1165,33 @@
spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
reacquire_kernel_lock(current);
+
if (need_resched())
goto need_resched;
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
+
+}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
+
+ /*
+ * this is is the entry point to schedule() from in-kernel preemption.
+ */
+ asmlinkage void preempt_schedule(void)
+ {
+ do {
+ current->preempt_count += PREEMPT_ACTIVE;
+ schedule();
+ current->preempt_count -= PREEMPT_ACTIVE;
+ barrier();
+ } while (current->need_resched);
}
+#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT */
+
/*
* The core wakeup function. Non-exclusive wakeups (nr_exclusive == 0) just
- * wake everything up. If it's an exclusive wakeup (nr_exclusive == small
+ve
+ * wake everything up. If it's an exclusive wakeup (nr_exclusive == small
* number) then we wake all the non-exclusive tasks and one exclusive task.
*
* There are circumstances in which we can try to wake a task which has
already
@@ -1923,6 +1957,11 @@
double_rq_unlock(idle_rq, rq);
set_tsk_need_resched(idle);
__restore_flags(flags);
+
+#if CONFIG_PREEMPT
+ /* Set the preempt count _outside_ the spinlocks! */
+ idle->preempt_count = (idle->lock_depth >= 0);
+#endif
}
#if CONFIG_SMP
@@ -1968,6 +2007,7 @@
if (!new_mask)
BUG();
+ preempt_disable();
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
p->cpus_allowed = new_mask;
/*
@@ -1995,7 +2035,7 @@
down(&req.sem);
out:
- return;
+ preempt_enable();
}
static __initdata int master_migration_thread;
=====================================================
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 04:49 am, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, anton wilson wrote:
> > I tried to change the current RML preemptive patch for 2.4.19-rc2 to
> > work with the O(1) scheduler patch applied. The only changes I made were
> > in sched.c - Not sure if this is a correct change:
>
> looks good at first sight.
>
> this one:
> > +
> > + /* Set the preempt count _outside_ the spinlocks! */
> > + idle->preempt_count = (idle->lock_depth >= 0);
>
> needs to be #if CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>
> Ingo
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-23 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-22 23:36 [PATCH] RML pre-emptive 2.4.19-ac2 with O(1) anton wilson
2002-07-23 8:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-07-23 15:55 ` anton wilson [this message]
2002-07-23 15:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-07-23 16:15 ` anton wilson
2002-07-23 16:34 ` Robert Love
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200207231556.LAA15086@test-area.com \
--to=anton.wilson@camotion.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.