From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754761AbZGJQ0d@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754761AbZGJQ0d (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:26:33 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752214AbZGJQ00
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:26:26 -0400
Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.150]:20999 "EHLO
	ey-out-1920.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751376AbZGJQ0Z (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:26:25 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=EUtv+q8ojGZAVBVXfmzA2WWNIBGV+wJHEB4jO0hNSbpY0FputtJJgJF+N0UgqlW5tt
         ecxrP0V5l9OOmqCWwxhRfQj289PPLKeK/WLPH6Egn7a+Xm2GQocfLqZYhkMlUYPKqUUc
         g0ziK/6MuZny7fNTudjpePtZVtSVBJsn3Idzk=
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:26:21 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Drop the need_resched() loop from
	cond_resched()
Message-ID: <20090710162620.GD5318@nowhere>
References: <1247237391-5352-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <200907101717.39460.arnd@arndb.de> <20090710152425.GB5318@nowhere> <200907101735.29463.arnd@arndb.de> <20090710155037.GC5318@nowhere> <20090710161141.GC22049@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090710161141.GC22049@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 06:11:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 05:35:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday 10 July 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 05:17:38PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 10 July 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > > > > > @@ -6613,11 +6613,9 @@ static void __cond_resched(void)
> > > > > >          * PREEMPT_ACTIVE, which could trigger a second
> > > > > >          * cond_resched() call.
> > > > > >          */
> > > > > > -       do {
> > > > > > -               add_preempt_count(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > > > > > -               schedule();
> > > > > > -               sub_preempt_count(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > > > > > -       } while (need_resched());
> > > > > > +       add_preempt_count(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > > > > > +       schedule();
> > > > > > +       sub_preempt_count(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you drop the loop, then you should also remove the comment that
> > > > > explains why it was put there.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, these comments seem to actually explain why we do the PREEMPT_ACTIVE
> > > > trick, which is to prevent from cond_resched() recursion, right?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think we both misinterpreted the comment, which seemed to refer
> > > to older code added by Ingo in 5bbcfd900 "cond_resched(): fix bogus
> > > might_sleep() warning" and removed by Andrew in e7b384043e2
> > > "cond_resched() fix".
> > > 
> > > The original code in Ingos version looked like
> > > 
> > >  static inline void __cond_resched(void)
> > >  {
> > >        /*
> > >         * The BKS might be reacquired before we have dropped
> > >         * PREEMPT_ACTIVE, which could trigger a second
> > >         * cond_resched() call.
> > >         */
> > >        if (unlikely(preempt_count()))
> > >                return;
> > >        do {
> > >                add_preempt_count(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > >                schedule();
> > > 	...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, it's got nothing to do with the loop, but should still be removed
> > > because the 'if (unlikely(preempt_count()))' is no longer there.
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah, but the comment still fits the code after this patch, don't 
> > you think? :-)
> 
> ... except that there's no Big Kernel Semaphore anymore ;-)
> 
> 	Ingo

Ah, I lack some backgrounds about Linux heroic ages :)
I thought it was a mispell of BKL.

I guess the comment should be removed anyway, while reading it
more, it doesn't explain the code that follows it.