lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 05/50] sched: Provide schedule point for RT locks
    On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:49:47AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > On Wed, Jul 14 2021 at 10:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:10:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > >
    > >> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
    > >> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
    > >> @@ -5832,8 +5832,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
    > >> */
    > >> #define SM_NONE 0x0
    > >> #define SM_PREEMPT 0x1
    > >> -#define SM_MASK_PREEMPT UINT_MAX
    > >> -#define SM_MASK_STATE SM_MASK_PREEMPT
    > >> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
    > >> +# define SM_MASK_PREEMPT UINT_MAX
    > >> +# define SM_MASK_STATE SM_MASK_PREEMPT
    > >> +#else
    > >> +# define SM_RTLOCK_WAIT 0x2
    > >> +# define SM_MASK_PREEMPT SM_PREEMPT
    > >> +# define SM_MASK_STATE (SM_PREEMPT | SM_RTLOCK_WAIT)
    > >> +#endif
    > >
    > > Wouldn't something like this:
    > >
    > >
    > > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
    > > # define SM_MASK_PREEMPT (~0U)
    > > #else
    > > # define SM_RTLOCK_WAIT 0x2
    > > # define SM_MASK_PREEMPT SM_PREEMPT
    > > #endif
    > >
    > > #define SM_MASK_STATE (~0U)
    > >
    > > Be even better?
    >
    > SM_MASK_STATE is overengineered. See combo patch 4+5 below

    Yep, that should result in similar code as my proposal, thanks!

    nit: you like UINT_MAX better than (~0U) ?

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-07-14 12:17    [W:2.638 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site