Re: [PATCH 6/7] sched: Clean up preempt_enable_no_resched() abuse

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:02:54PM +0200, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> IMHO This has been reviewed thoroughly.
> 
> When Ben Hutchings voiced concerns I rewrote the code to use time_after,
> so even if you do get switched over to a CPU where the time is random
> you will at most poll another full interval.
> 
> Linus asked me to remove this since it makes us use two time values
> instead of one. see https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/8/345.

I'm not sure I see how this would be true.

So the do_select() code basically does:

  for (;;) {

    /* actual poll loop */

    if (!need_resched()) {
      if (!busy_end) {
	busy_end = now() + busypoll;
	continue;
      }
      if (!((long)(busy_end - now()) < 0))
	continue;
    }

    /* go sleep */

  }

So imagine our CPU0 timebase is 1 minute ahead of CPU1 (60e9 vs 0), and we start by:

  busy_end = now() + busypoll; /* CPU0: 60e9 + d */

but then we migrate to CPU1 and do:

  busy_end - now() /* CPU1: 60e9 + d' */

and find we're still a minute out; and in fact we'll keep spinning for
that entire minute barring a need_resched().

Surely that's not intended and desired?