lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] dm: Remove dm_bufio_cond_resched()
On Fri, Sep 23 2016 at  8:26am -0400,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:17:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 10:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > Is anybody still using PREEMPT_NONE? Most workloads also care about
> > > > latency to some extend. Lots of code has explicit cond_resched() and
> > > > doesn't worry.
> > >
> > > Dunno. But I bet there are workloads which love it.
> >
> > SUSE definitely uses it. I had presumed that was enterprise standard.
>
> Hmm, I thought most distros defaulted to PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY.

So what is the concensus on this? Switch dm-bufio's cond_resched calls
(in peter's patch) to might_sleep()? Or continue using cond_resched but
fix cond_resched to do the might_sleep() equivalent if PREEMPT_NONE?

Mike

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-23 14:44    [W:0.074 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site