Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: allow to configure PREEMPT_NONE, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY on kernel command line

Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-09T11:39:22Z

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:48:08PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 09-10-20 12:20:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:14:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 09-10-20 11:47:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > That is, work backwards (from PREEMPT back to VOLUNTARY) instead of the
> > > > other way around.
> > >
> > > My original idea was that the config would only define the default
> > > preemption mode. preempt_none parameter would then just act as an
> > > override. That would mean that CONFIG_PREEMPTION would be effectively
> > > gone from the kernel. The reason being that any code outside of the
> > > scheduler shouldn't really care about the preemption mode. I suspect
> > > this will prevent from dubious hacks and provide a more robust code in
> > > the end.
> >
> > Sure; but the way of arriving at that destination might be easier if
> > you work backwards from PREEMPT=y, because while there _should_ not be
> > dependencies outside of the scheduler, we both know there are.
>
> Wouldn't we need to examine each of the CONFIG_PREEMPTION code anyway?
> And wouldn't that be even more tricky? The boot time option would result
> in a more restrictive preemption mode while the code is actually
> assuming a less restrictive one.

Sure, in the end we'll have to look at all of that.

> > This also makes your patches independent of the series that makes
> > CONFIG_PREEMPTION unconditional.
> >
> > It also gives Kconfig space to limit the dynamic thing to archs that
> > have sufficient support (we'll be relying on static_call/static_branch,
> > and not everybody has that implemented in a way that makes it the
> > dynamic change worth-while).
>
> Hmm, this is actually a good argument. I can imagine that kernels
> without CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL might increase a runtime overhead for
> something that users of that kernel might be not really interested in.
> This would make CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC be selected by CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL.
>
> I will add the CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC in the next version. I just have
> to think whether flipping the direction is really safe and easier in the
> end. For our particular usecase we are more interested in
> NONE<->VOLUNTARY at this moment and having full preemption in the mix
> later is just fine. If you insist on the other direction then we can
> work on that.

Ah, I was purely thinking of the FULL preempt case. For the
NONE/VOLATILE case you can probably keep it simpler.