lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] stop_machine: Make migration_cpu_stop() does useful works for CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
From
Date


on 09/12/2016 07:03 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/10, Cheng Chao wrote:
>>
>> @@ -126,6 +126,17 @@ int stop_one_cpu(unsigned int cpu, cpu_stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
>> cpu_stop_init_done(&done, 1);
>> if (!cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu, &work))
>> return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE)
>> + /*
>> + * Makes the stopper thread run as soon as possible.
>> + * And if the caller is TASK_RUNNING, keeps the caller TASK_RUNNING.
>> + * It's special useful for some callers which are expected to be
>> + * TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED.
>> + * sched_exec does benefit from this improvement.
>> + */
>> + schedule();
>> +#endif
>> wait_for_completion(&done.completion);
>> return done.ret;
>> }
>
> Cheng, I already tried twice to suggest to conditionalize this schedule,
> because it can only help if cpu == smp_processor_id, and you didn't reply.
> I still think _cond_resched() makes more sense.
>
> I won't really argue if you prefer it this way. But did you see my emails?
>

I read them, thanks. because Peter didn't receive my mails before, it took me much time
to fix my mailbox, so I didn't reply on time.

Ok, even if cpu != smp_processor_id(), to call schedule() instead _cond_resched() can
give the caller a chance not to sleep. when the caller runs on the cpu again, it may
likely find the completion is already done.
then the stopper thread cpu_stop_signal_done() and the caller wait_for_completion() will
actually run very soon.

I think it is trivial improvement. using cond_resched()/_cond_resched() is better for
readability, I choose the cond_resched().

thanks again.




> Oleg.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:0.530 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site