lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86,entry: Only call user_exit if TIF_NOHZ
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:42:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/31, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:23:34AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > > At the end of the day, the syscall slowpath code calls a bunch of
> > > functions depending on what TIF_XYZ flags are set. As long as it's
> > > structured like "if (TIF_A) do_a(); if (TIF_B) do_b();" or something
> > > like that, it's comprehensible. But once random functions with no
> > > explicit flag checks or comments start showing up, it gets confusing.
> >
> > Yeah that's a point. I don't mind much the TIF_NOHZ test if you like.
>
> And in my opinion
>
> if (work & TIF_XYZ)
> user_exit();
>
> looks even more confusing. Because, once again, TIF_XYZ is not the
> reason to call user_exit().
>
> Not to mention this adds a minor performance penalty.

That's a point too! You guys both convinced me! ;-)

>
> > > If it's indeed all-or-nothing, I could remove the check and add a
> > > comment. But please keep in mind that, currently, the slow path is
> > > *slow*, and my patches only improve the entry case. So enabling
> > > context tracking on every task will hurt.
> >
> > That's what we do anyway. I haven't found a safe way to enabled context tracking
> > without tracking all CPUs.
>
> And if we change this, then the code above becomes racy. The state of
> TIF_XYZ can be changed right after the check. OK, it is racy anyway ;)
> but still this adds more confusion.

No because all running tasks have this flag set when context tracking is
enabled. And context tracking can't be disabled on runtime.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-01 05:21    [W:0.090 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site