Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-71576-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 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, 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, Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@arndb.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/30] thread_info: tif_need_resched() now takes
 resched_t as param
In-Reply-To: <ZczJU8uZdbRKvcAE@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20240213055554.1802415-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20240213055554.1802415-4-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <ZczJU8uZdbRKvcAE@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:21:04 +0100
Message-ID: <87v86k8opr.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, Feb 14 2024 at 14:08, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:55:27PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
>>  
>> -static __always_inline bool tif_need_resched(void)
>> +static __always_inline bool __tif_need_resched(int nr_flag)
>>  {
>> -	return test_bit(TIF_NEED_RESCHED,
>> -			(unsigned long *)(&current_thread_info()->flags));
>> +	return test_bit(nr_flag,
>> +		(unsigned long *)(&current_thread_info()->flags));
>>  }
>>  
>>  #endif /* _ASM_GENERIC_BITOPS_INSTRUMENTED_NON_ATOMIC_H */
>>  
>> +static __always_inline bool tif_need_resched(resched_t rs)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * With !PREEMPT_AUTO tif_need_resched(NR_lazy) is defined
>> +	 * as TIF_NEED_RESCHED (the TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY flag is not
>> +	 * defined). Return false in that case.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) || rs == NR_now)
>> +		return __tif_need_resched(tif_resched(rs));
>> +	else
>> +		return false;
>> +}
>
> As above, I think this would be a bit simpler/clearer if we did:
>
> static __always_inline bool tif_need_resched_now(void)
> {
> 	return __tif_need_resched(TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
> }
>
> static __always_inline bool tif_need_resched_lazy(void)
> {
> 	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO) &&
> 	        __tif_need_resched(TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY);
> }

Yes please.