Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:12:27 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        joel.opensrc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/22] sched: Make non-production PREEMPT
 cond_resched() help Tasks RCU
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180423023150.GA21533@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1524450747-22778-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180423085127.GR4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180423124000.GL26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180423094742.6582e19d@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180423141038.GA4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180423103529.36848ae1@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180423154707.GP26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180423154707.GP26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180423191227.GA26819@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 08:47:07AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:35:29AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:10:38 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > >  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180227153646.GD3777@linux.vnet.ibm.com  
> > > 
> > > That thread using cond_resched_task_rcu_qs() seems like a _lot_ better
> > > than having cond_resched() semantics change depending on random
> > > !scheduler config parameters.
> > 
> > Yeah, I agree. Not sure why Paul didn't push it. Maybe because I never
> > replied to that final email and he forgot?
> > 
> > Paul?
> 
> Yeah, I have been a bit event-driven of late.  So the thought is to keep
> cond_resched() as-is and use cond_resched_task_rcu_qs(), that is after
> the rename, for the stress tests instead of the current cond_resched().
> Or did I lose the thread?

Actually, I already use cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() in
benchmark_event_kthread(), so all I need to do is drop this commit.

Which I have done, thanks everyone for the review!

							Thanx, Paul