Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754875AbZKWP7Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:59:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754327AbZKWP7Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:59:24 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15176 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753729AbZKWP7X (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:59:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:58:51 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/12] Maintain preemptability count even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels Message-ID: <20091123155851.GU2999@redhat.com> References: <1258985167-29178-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1258985167-29178-11-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1258990455.4531.594.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1258990455.4531.594.camel@laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1578 Lines: 31 On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:34:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 16:06 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > Do not preempt kernel. Just maintain counter to know if task can be rescheduled. > > Asynchronous page fault may be delivered while spinlock is held or current > > process can't be preempted for other reasons. KVM uses preempt_count() to check if preemptions is allowed and schedule other process if possible. This works > > with preemptable kernels since they maintain accurate information about > > preemptability in preempt_count. This patch make non-preemptable kernel > > maintain accurate information in preempt_count too. > > I'm thinking you're going to have to convince some people this won't > slow them down for no good. > I saw old discussions about this in mailing list archives. Usually someone wanted to use in_atomic() in driver code and this, of course, caused the resistant. In this case, I think, the use is legitimate. > Personally I always have PREEMPT=y, but other people seem to feel > strongly about not doing so. > It is possible to add one more config option to enable reliable preempt_count() without enabling preemption or make async pf be dependable on PREEMPT=y. Don't like both of this options especially first one. There are more then enough options already. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/