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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
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()
In-Reply-To: <20201020160732.5f8fc24e@oasis.local.home>
References: <87r1pt7y5c.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20201020113830.378b4a4c@gandalf.local.home> <87o8kw93n4.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20201020160732.5f8fc24e@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:27:22 +0200
Message-ID: <87h7qo6ntx.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 20 2020 at 16:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:02:55 +0200
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> What I wrote wasn't exactly what I meant. What I meant to have:
>
> 	/*
> 	 * Since we are going to call schedule() anyways, there's
> 	 * no need to do the preemption check when the rq_lock is released.
> 	 */
>
> That is, to document why we have the preempt_disable() before the unlock:

which is pretty obvious, but I let Peter decide on that.