From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Move the sleeping while atomic checks early in cond_resched()
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:08:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090710180801.GA5271@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1247247810.6042.5.camel@laptop>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 07:43:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 19:14 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > might_sleep() is called lately in cond_resched(), after the
> > need_resched()/preempt enabled/system running tests are checked.
> >
> > It's better to check the sleeps while atomic earlier and not depend
> > on some environment datas that reduce the chances to detect a
> > problem.
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - call __might_sleep() directly instead of might_sleep() which may call
> > cond_resched()
> > - turn cond_resched() into a macro so that the file:line couple reported
> > refers to the caller of cond_resched() and not __cond_resched() itself.
> > - drop the obsolete CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL related zones
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/sched.h | 22 +++++++---------------
> > kernel/sched.c | 5 ++---
> > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index 0cb0d8d..737f569 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -2276,23 +2276,15 @@ static inline int need_resched(void)
> > * cond_resched_softirq() will enable bhs before scheduling.
> > */
> > extern int _cond_resched(void);
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL
> > -static inline int cond_resched(void)
> > -{
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -#else
> > -static inline int cond_resched(void)
> > -{
> > - return _cond_resched();
> > -}
> > -#endif
> > +#define cond_resched() ({ \
> > + __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
> > + _cond_resched(); \
> > +})
>
> I don't think this will compile for !CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP.
Ahh, right.
> > extern int cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t * lock);
> > extern int cond_resched_softirq(void);
> > -static inline int cond_resched_bkl(void)
> > -{
> > - return _cond_resched();
> > -}
> > +
> > +#define cond_resched_bkl() cond_resched();
>
> We might as well convert the one user of this ;-)
Ok :)
> > /*
> > * Does a critical section need to be broken due to another
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> > index 87ecac1..649ec92 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -6605,9 +6605,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
> >
> > static void __cond_resched(void)
> > {
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP
> > - __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
> > -#endif
> > /*
> > * The BKS might be reacquired before we have dropped
> > * PREEMPT_ACTIVE, which could trigger a second
> > @@ -6644,6 +6641,7 @@ int cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> >
> > if (spin_needbreak(lock) || resched) {
> > spin_unlock(lock);
> > + __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
> > if (resched && need_resched())
> > __cond_resched();
> > else
> > @@ -6661,6 +6659,7 @@ int __sched cond_resched_softirq(void)
> >
> > if (need_resched() && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
> > local_bh_enable();
> > + __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
> > __cond_resched();
> > local_bh_disable();
> > return 1;
>
> Right, how about renaming these to _cond_resched_{lock,softirq}, and
> added a __might_sleep() definition for !DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP and add
> macro wrappers to sched.c for these two as well?
I did that first but thought that might_sleep() would fail in a spinlock
held or softirq context, right?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-10 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-10 14:49 [PATCH 1/2] sched: Drop the need_resched() loop from cond_resched() Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 14:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: Move the sleeping while atomic checks early in cond_resched() Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-10 15:08 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 15:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-10 16:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-10 17:14 ` [PATCH] " Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 17:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-10 18:08 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2009-07-10 18:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-10 18:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 15:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: Drop the need_resched() loop from cond_resched() Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-10 15:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-07-10 15:24 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 15:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-07-10 15:50 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 16:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-10 16:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-07-10 17:23 ` [PATCH] sched: Remove obsolete comment in __cond_resched() Frederic Weisbecker
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=20090710180801.GA5271@nowhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--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.