lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: question about blk_schedule_flush_plug
From
Date
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 17:05 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> I was looking at the scheduler changes going into 2.6.39 again and wondered
> about the use of blk_schedule_flush_plug smack in the middle of schedule()
>
> It looks like this:
> if (blk_needs_flush_plug(prev)) {
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> blk_schedule_flush_plug(prev);
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> }
>
> Now call me suspicious but to my eyes it looks really dubious unlocking the
> runqueue like that right in the heart of schedule().
>
> Comments?

Releasing/retaking rq->lock is nothing new:

static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
{
...
/*
* Drop the rq->lock, but keep IRQ/preempt disabled.
*/
raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);

See also need_resched, and double_lock_balance() instances.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-23 09:47    [W:0.031 / U:141.032 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site