Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756407AbcCQMGg (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:06:36 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0221.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.221]:37545 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755969AbcCQMGe (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:06:34 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1540:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2892:2912:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3871:3873:3874:4411:5007:6120:6261:7875:7901:10004:10400:10848:10967:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:13439:14096:14097:14659:14721:21080:30025:30041:30054:30060:30070:30075:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: dogs45_390bd70542b05 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2358 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:06:29 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Nicholas Mc Guire , Joel Fernandes , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , kernelnewbies , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: RFC on fixing mutex spinning on owner Message-ID: <20160317080629.1af8f733@grimm.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20160316233530.GA8731@kroah.com> <20160316221751.71816309@grimm.local.home> <20160317073605.GM6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160317080526.GB6679@osadl.at> <20160317101823.GQ6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.29; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 901 Lines: 22 On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:16:11 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Also, maybe the tracer should measure the time from need_resched() > > getting true until the next preemption point, instead of the entire time > > preemption was disabled. Which would avoid the entire issue altogether. > > Well, that only gives you the information on a actual preemption, but not > information about long preempt disabled regions which can cause a problem > eventually. > Actually, I was thinking the reverse. If need_resched() is called and is false, then do a reset of the preemption time. But if need_resched() is true, then do nothing, as that would measure the total time preempt disable was set and a task could not schedule. Question is, should this be a hook and each location audited, or add this to need_resched() itself? -- Steve