Re: [PATCH v2 10/35] entry: irqentry_exit only preempts for TIF_NEED_RESCHED

Ankur Arora
2024-05-30T09:04:25Z

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 05:34:56PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> Use __tif_need_resched(RESCHED_NOW) instead of need_resched() to be
>> explicit that this path only reschedules if it is needed imminently.
>>
>> Also, add a comment about why we need a need-resched check here at
>> all, given that the top level conditional has already checked the
>> preempt_count().
>>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87jzshhexi.ffs@tglx/
>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/entry/common.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/entry/common.c b/kernel/entry/common.c
>> index bcb23c866425..c684385921de 100644
>> --- a/kernel/entry/common.c
>> +++ b/kernel/entry/common.c
>> @@ -307,7 +307,16 @@ void raw_irqentry_exit_cond_resched(void)
>> rcu_irq_exit_check_preempt();
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY))
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!on_thread_stack());
>> - if (need_resched())
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Check if we need to preempt eagerly.
>> + *
>> + * Note: we need an explicit check here because some
>> + * architectures don't fold TIF_NEED_RESCHED in the
>> + * preempt_count. For archs that do, this is already covered
>> + * in the conditional above.
>> + */
>> + if (__tif_need_resched(RESCHED_NOW))
>> preempt_schedule_irq();
>
> Seeing how you introduced need_resched_lazy() and kept need_resched() to
> be the NOW thing, I really don't see the point of using the long form
> here?

So, the reason I used the lower level interface here (and the scheduler)
was to spell out exactly was happening here.

Basically keep need_resched()/need_resched_lazy() for the none-core code.

--
ankur