lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative
From
Date
On 4/23/19 3:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 03:12:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 4/23/19 12:27 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 7:17 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm not aware of an architecture where disabling interrupts is faster
>>>> than disabling preemption.
>>> I don't thin kit ever is, but I'd worry a bit about the
>>> preempt_enable() just because it also checks if need_resched() is true
>>> when re-enabling preemption.
>>>
>>> So doing preempt_enable() as part of rwsem_read_trylock() might cause
>>> us to schedule in *exactly* the wrong place,
>> You are right on that. However, there is a variant called
>> preempt_enable_no_resched() that doesn't have this side effect. So I am
>> going to use that one instead.
> Only if the very next line is schedule(). Otherwise you're very much not
> going to use that function.

May I know the reason why. I saw a number of instances of
preempt_enable_no_resched() without right next a schedule().

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-23 21:42    [W:0.186 / U:1.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site