Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 01:57:20PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> Add tif_resched() which will be used as an accessor for TIF_NEED_RESCHED
>> and TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY. The intent is to force the caller to make an
>> explicit choice of how eagerly they want a reschedule.
>>
>> This interface will be used almost entirely from core kernel code, so
>> forcing a choice shouldn't be too onerous.
>>
>> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <[email protected]>
>
>> ---
>> include/linux/thread_info.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/thread_info.h b/include/linux/thread_info.h
>> index 9ea0b28068f4..4eb22b13bf64 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/thread_info.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/thread_info.h
>> @@ -59,6 +59,27 @@ enum syscall_work_bit {
>>
>> #include <asm/thread_info.h>
>>
>> +#ifndef TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY
>> +#error "Arch needs to define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY"
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY_OFFSET (TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY - TIF_NEED_RESCHED)
>> +
>> +typedef enum {
>> + RESCHED_eager = 0,
>> + RESCHED_lazy = TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY_OFFSET,
>> +} resched_t;
>> +
>> +static inline int tif_resched(resched_t r)
>> +{
>> + return TIF_NEED_RESCHED + r;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int _tif_resched(resched_t r)
>> +{
>> + return 1 << tif_resched(r);
>> +}
>
> So either I'm confused or I'm thinking this is wrong. If you want to
> preempt eagerly you want to preempt more than when you're not eager to
> preempt, right?
>
> So an eager preemption site wants to include the LAZY bit.
>
> Whereas a site that wants to lazily preempt would prefer to not preempt
> until forced, and hence would not include LAZY bit.
This wasn't meant to be quite that sophisticated.
tif_resched(RESCHED_eager) means you preempt immediately/eagerly and
tif_resched(RESCHED_lazy) means you want deferred preemption.
I changed it to:
typedef enum {
NR_now = 0,
NR_lazy = TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY_OFFSET,
} resched_t;
So, to get the respective bit we would have: tif_resched(NR_now) or
tif_resched(NR_lazy).
And the immediate preemption checks would be...
if (tif_need_resched(NR_now))
preempt_schedule_irq();
Does this read better?
--
ankur