From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: make callers check lock contention for
 cond_resched_lock()
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 10:35:27 +0200
Message-ID: <1336034127.13683.197.camel@twins>
References: <20120503171244.2debdd80931ccf35f387c5fe@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com,
	mtosatti@redhat.com, yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120503171244.2debdd80931ccf35f387c5fe@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 17:12 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> 
> Although we can do that using spin_is_contended() and cond_resched(),
> changing cond_resched_lock() to satisfy such a need is another option.
> 
Yeah, not a pretty patch. Changing all cond_resched_lock() sites just to
change one and in such an ugly way too.

So what's the impact of making spin_needbreak() work for !PREEMPT?