Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:38:30 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Reenable interrupts in do sched_yield()
Message-ID: <20201020113830.378b4a4c@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <87r1pt7y5c.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <87r1pt7y5c.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:46:55 +0200
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> -	/*
> -	 * Since we are going to call schedule() anyway, there's
> -	 * no need to preempt or enable interrupts:

I think the above comment still makes sense, just needs to be tweeked:

	/*
	 * Since we are going to call schedule() anyway, there's
	 * no need to allow preemption after releasing the rq lock.
> -	 */

Especially, since we are now enabling interrupts, which is likely to
trigger a preemption.

-- Steve

>  	preempt_disable();
> -	rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
> +	rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
>  	sched_preempt_enable_no_resched();
>  
>  	schedule();