[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [for-next][PATCH 13/25] x86/mm/kmmio: Use rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace()
On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 00:30:36 +0100
Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 10 2022 at 13:34, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:47:53 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" <> wrote:
> >> This does mess with preempt_count() redundantly, but the overhead from
> >> that should be way down in the noise.
> >
> > I was going to remove it, but then I realized that it would be a functional
> > change, as from the comment above, it uses "preempt_enable_no_resched(),
> > which there is not a rcu_read_unlock_sched() variant.
> preempt_enable_no_resched() in this context is simply garbage.
> preempt_enable_no_resched() tries to avoid the overhead of checking
> whether rescheduling is due after decrementing preempt_count() because
> the code which it this claims to know that it is _not_ the outermost one
> which brings preempt count back to preemtible state.
> I concede that there are hot paths which actually can benefit, but this
> code has exactly _ZERO_ benefit from that. Taking that tracing exception
> and handling it is orders of magnitudes more expensive than a regular
> preempt_enable().
> So just get rid of it and don't proliferate cargo cult programming.

The point of the patch is to just fix the lockdep issue. I'm happy to
remove that "no_resched" (I was planning to), but that would be a separate
change, with a different purpose, and thus a separate patch.

-- Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-11 00:56    [W:0.104 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site