From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] schedule: simplify the reacquire_kernel_lock() logic
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:11:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100519131155.GB2216@zhy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100519125711.GA30199@redhat.com>
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 02:57:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> - Contrary to what 6d558c3a says, there is no need to reload
> prev = rq->curr after the context switch. You always schedule
> back to where you came from, prev must be equal to current
> even if cpu/rq was changed.
>
> - This also means reacquire_kernel_lock() can use prev instead
> of current.
>
> - No need to reassign switch_count if reacquire_kernel_lock()
> reports need_resched(), we can just move the initial assignment
> down, under the "need_resched_nonpreemptible:" label.
>
> - Try to update the comment after context_switch().
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
This make it more clear now. Thank you Oleg.
Acked-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> kernel/sched.c | 13 ++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> --- 34-rc1/kernel/sched.c~SCHEDULE_PREV_EQ_TO_CURRENT 2010-05-18 23:32:50.000000000 +0200
> +++ 34-rc1/kernel/sched.c 2010-05-19 14:32:57.000000000 +0200
> @@ -3679,7 +3679,6 @@ need_resched:
> rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> rcu_sched_qs(cpu);
> prev = rq->curr;
> - switch_count = &prev->nivcsw;
>
> release_kernel_lock(prev);
> need_resched_nonpreemptible:
> @@ -3693,6 +3692,7 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
> update_rq_clock(rq);
> clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);
>
> + switch_count = &prev->nivcsw;
> if (prev->state && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)) {
> if (unlikely(signal_pending_state(prev->state, prev)))
> prev->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> @@ -3719,8 +3719,10 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
>
> context_switch(rq, prev, next); /* unlocks the rq */
> /*
> - * the context switch might have flipped the stack from under
> - * us, hence refresh the local variables.
> + * The context switch have flipped the stack from under us
> + * and restored the local variables which were saved when
> + * this task called schedule() in the past. prev == current
> + * is still correct, but it can be moved to another cpu/rq.
> */
> cpu = smp_processor_id();
> rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> @@ -3729,11 +3731,8 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
>
> post_schedule(rq);
>
> - if (unlikely(reacquire_kernel_lock(current) < 0)) {
> - prev = rq->curr;
> - switch_count = &prev->nivcsw;
> + if (unlikely(reacquire_kernel_lock(prev)))
> goto need_resched_nonpreemptible;
> - }
>
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> if (need_resched())
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-19 13:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-18 16:45 [PATCH 1/3] Reduce get_current() to the asm-generic implementation where possible David Howells
2010-05-18 16:45 ` [PATCH 2/3] Mark the 'current' pointer register read-only when such a thing exists David Howells
2010-05-18 21:05 ` David Miller
2010-05-18 16:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] Make get_current() __attribute__((const)) David Howells
2010-05-18 21:22 ` schedule() && prev/current (Was: [PATCH 3/3] Make get_current() __attribute__((const))) Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 6:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-19 10:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 10:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-19 12:57 ` [PATCH] schedule: simplify the reacquire_kernel_lock() logic Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 12:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 13:11 ` Yong Zhang [this message]
2010-05-19 13:07 ` schedule() && prev/current (Was: [PATCH 3/3] Make get_current() __attribute__((const))) Yong Zhang
2010-05-19 13:07 ` Yong Zhang
2010-05-18 17:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] Reduce get_current() to the asm-generic implementation where possible Kyle McMartin
2010-05-18 19:47 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-05-19 6:21 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-19 11:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-21 10:13 ` David Howells
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=20100519131155.GB2216@zhy \
--to=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).