[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] per-cpu preempt_count

* Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> >
> > The below boots to wanting to mount a root filesystem with
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT=y using kvm -smp 4.
> But doesn't work in general? Or you just never tested?

(I think Peter never tested it on real hw - this is an RFC patch to show
the concept .)

> > Adding TIF_NEED_RESCHED into the preempt count would allow a single
> > test in preempt_check_resched() instead of still needing the TI.
> > Removing PREEMPT_ACTIVE from preempt count should allow us to get rid
> > of ti::preempt_count altogether.
> >
> > The only problem with TIF_NEED_RESCHED is that its cross-cpu which
> > would make the entire thing atomic which would suck donkey balls so
> > maybe we need two separate per-cpu variables?
> Agreed. Making it atomic would suck, and cancel all advantages of the
> better code generation to access it. Good point.

We could still have the advantages of NEED_RESCHED in preempt_count() by
realizing that we only rarely actually set/clear need_resched and mostly
read it from the highest freq user, the preempt_enable() check.

So we could have it atomic, but do atomic_read() in the preempt_enable()
hotpath which wouldn't suck donkey balls, right?

That would allow a really sweet preempt_enable() fastpath, on x86 at



 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-12 20:21    [W:2.131 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site