lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] spin_unlock*_no_resched()
From
Date
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> So I absolutely hate this API because people can (and invariably will)
> abuse it; much like they did/do preempt_enable_no_resched().

Me too.

>
> IIRC Thomas even maps preempt_enable_no_resched() to preempt_enable() in
> -rt to make sure we don't miss preemption points due to stupidity.
>
> He converted the 'few' sane sites to use schedule_preempt_disabled(). In
> that vein, does it make sense to introduce schedule_spin_locked()?
>

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read this patch. This is a
strict policy that we should enforce and not let individual developers
implement. Yes, a schedule_spin_unlock() would work nicely. The API will
enforce the two to be used together. Otherwise, I can envision seeing
things like:

preempt_disable();
[...]

spin_lock(x);

spin_unlock_no_resched(x);

[...]

preempt_enable();

And developers having no idea why the above is broken. Although, I would
say the above is broken for other reasons, but I was just using that to
show the craziness such an API would give to us.

-- Steve





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-12 15:21    [W:0.092 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site