From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932465AbcIMQPT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:15:19 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50918 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932383AbcIMQPR (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:15:17 -0400
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:14:27 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Cheng Chao <cs.os.kernel@gmail.com>, mingo@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] stop_machine: Make migration_cpu_stop() does useful
        works for CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
Message-ID: <20160913161427.GA32543@redhat.com>
References: <1473408834-6122-1-git-send-email-chengchao@kedacom.com> <1473497532-5440-1-git-send-email-cs.os.kernel@gmail.com> <20160912113727.GQ10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160912114108.GP10168@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160912130537.GB7984@redhat.com> <20160912150111.GC10121@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160912150111.GC10121@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:15:16 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:05:38PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > But this leads to the question which I wanted to ask many times.
> >
> > Why cond_resched() is not NOP if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y ?
>
> Dunno, nobody bothered to do it? We should keep the might_sleep() of
> course, but the preemption check is pointless.

Yes, agreed, I actually meant _cond_resched().

> > Perhaps we have some users like, just for example,
> > 
> > 	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > 	cond_resched();
> > 
> > which actually want the should_resched() check even if CONFIG_PREEMPT,
> > but most callers do not?
>
> I would hope not, the few preempt_enable_no_resched() users _should_
> have an actual schedule() call in the _very_ near future.

Me too, and I failed to find something which could be broken... So
perhaps should make it nop and investigate the new bug reports after
that.


Hmm. And  preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace() under TASK_DEAD in
__schedule() should be removed it seems, do_exit() can call __schedule()
directly.

Oleg.