Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Sun, 8 May 2022 22:41:01 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@fb.com>
Cc:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        "song@kernel.org" <song@kernel.org>,
        "joe.lawrence@redhat.com" <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        "jpoimboe@redhat.com" <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        "live-patching@vger.kernel.org" <live-patching@vger.kernel.org>,
        "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call klp_try_switch_task in __cond_resched
Message-ID: <20220508204101.GB76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220507174628.2086373-1-song@kernel.org>
 <1b7f0b76b6060b6a0ccd04fec2be6c0323907c8e.camel@fb.com>
 <36BA01F0-F2B7-4290-AB23-E61989262AB3@fb.com>
 <901aa9a48ef02eeec73dedf051dd0b14436ac22f.camel@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <901aa9a48ef02eeec73dedf051dd0b14436ac22f.camel@fb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 07:18:51PM +0000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Huh, I just looked at that, and the x86 should_resched()
> only seems to check that we _can_ resched, not whether
> we should...
> 
> 
> /*
>  * Returns true when we need to resched and can (barring IRQ state).
>  */
> static __always_inline bool should_resched(int preempt_offset)
> {
>         return unlikely(raw_cpu_read_4(__preempt_count) ==
> preempt_offset);
> }
> 
> I wonder if that was intended, and why, or whether
> the x86 should_resched should also be checking for
> TIF_NEED_RESCHED?

No, it does what you think it should do, you're just getting confused by
the inverted PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED bit :-)