Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-71582-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@kernel.org,
 akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
 dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
 juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, willy@infradead.org,
 mgorman@suse.de, jpoimboe@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
 jgross@suse.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, bristot@kernel.org,
 mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
 glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com,
 mattst88@gmail.com, krypton@ulrich-teichert.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
 David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, richard@nod.at, mjguzik@gmail.com,
 jon.grimm@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com,
 boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, Ankur Arora
 <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/30] sched: *_tsk_need_resched() now takes resched_t
 as param
In-Reply-To: <20240213055554.1802415-6-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
References: <20240213055554.1802415-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20240213055554.1802415-6-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:26:17 +0100
Message-ID: <87sf1o8oh2.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, Feb 12 2024 at 21:55, Ankur Arora wrote:

The subject line reads odd...

> -static inline bool test_tsk_need_resched(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +static inline bool test_tsk_need_resched(struct task_struct *tsk, resched_t rs)
>  {
> -	return unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk,TIF_NEED_RESCHED));
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) || rs == NR_now)
> +		return unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, tif_resched(rs)));
> +	else
> +		return false;
>  }

Same like the others. This wants wrappers with now/lazy.
  
>  /*
> @@ -2104,7 +2121,8 @@ static __always_inline bool need_resched(void)
>  
>  static __always_inline bool need_resched_lazy(void)
>  {
> -	return unlikely(tif_need_resched(NR_lazy));
> +	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) &&
> +		unlikely(tif_need_resched(NR_lazy));

Shouldn't this be folded into the patch which adds need_resched_lazy()?

Thanks,

        tglx