From: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <1371479342.18733.14.camel@gandalf.local.home>
References: <353211371220851@web23d.yandex.ru> <1371479342.18733.14.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: schedule_raw_spin_unlock() and schedule_spin_unlock()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <575111371485546@web20h.yandex.ru>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:12:26 +0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2938
Lines: 85


17.06.2013, 18:29, "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>:
> On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 18:40 +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
>> ?diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> ?index 58453b8..381e493 100644
>> ?--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> ?+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> ?@@ -3125,6 +3125,30 @@ asmlinkage void __sched preempt_schedule_irq(void)
>> ??????????exception_exit(prev_state);
>> ??}
>>
>> ?+/*
>> ?+ * schedule_raw_spin_unlock - unlock raw_spinlock and call schedule()
>> ?+ *
>> ?+ * Should be used instead of the constructions
>> ?+ * ??1) raw_spin_unlock_irq(lock);
>> ?+ * ?????schedule();
>> ?+ * ??or
>> ?+ * ??2) raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> ?+ * ?????schedule();
>
> Is there a place that does #2? If interrupts were disabled, the flags
> would keep them disabled and that would not be good when calling
> schedule.

Some drivers use _irqsave even if they are certainly enabled, I was thinking
about them. This is mistake, but people use.

Now I'm agree with you, I'll remove advice #2 to not multiply this errors.

>> ?+ * where they have to be.
>> ?+ *
>> ?+ * It helps to prevent excess preempt_schedule() during the unlocking,
>> ?+ * which can be called on preemptible kernel.
>> ?+ * Returns with irqs enabled.
>> ?+ */
>> ?+void __sched schedule_raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>> ?+{
>
> I agree with the idea of adding this, but I don't like this
> implementation. Also, if this is to enable interrupts, the name must
> represent that:
>
> ??schedule_raw_spin_unlock_irq()
>
> You can't just enable them if they were not disabled. That will break
> things like lockdep.

Ok, and in addition may be useful schedule_raw_spin_unlock() for
use in cases like this happens in fs/*

>> ?+ preempt_disable();
>> ?+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(lock);
>> ?+ sched_preempt_enable_no_resched();
>
> This is the easy way of implementing this, but it does add a slight
> overhead here. Adding and subtracting preempt count just to prevent the
> disable does add a bit more computation. I've done this in the tracing
> code, but its within the tracing and in an unlikely path. The overhead
> is not common. But I can see this being in a fast path and not something
> that we want to add overhead to.
>
> The ideal solution is not the easy one. It is to introduce a real
> schedule_raw_spin_unlock() that is a copy of raw_spin_unlock() that does
> not call preempt_enable, but calls preempt_enable_no_resched() instead,
> and then does the schedule.

Ok

> -- Steve
>
>> ?+ schedule();
>> ?+}
>> ?+EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule_raw_spin_unlock);
>> ?+
>> ??#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT */
>>
>> ??int default_wake_function(wait_queue_t *curr, unsigned mode, int wake_flags,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/