Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW_RESCHED | Date | Mon, 02 Oct 2023 18:13:41 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, Oct 02 2023 at 10:15, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 03:11:05 +0200 > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> Though definitely I'm putting a permanent NAK in place for any attempts >> to duct tape the preempt=NONE model any further by sprinkling more >> cond*() and whatever warts around. > > Well, until we have this fix in, we will still need to sprinkle those > around when they are triggering watchdog timeouts. I just had to add one > recently due to a timeout report :-(
cond_resched() sure. But not new flavours of it, like the [dis]allow_resched() which sparked this discussion.
>> - TRACE_FLAG_NEED_RESCHED = 0x04, >> + TRACE_FLAG_NEED_RESCHED = 0x02, >> + TRACE_FLAG_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY = 0x04, > > Is LAZY only used for PREEMPT_NONE? Or do we use it for CONFIG_PREEMPT? > Because, NEED_RESCHED is known, and moving that to bit 2 will break user > space. Having LAZY replace the IRQS_NOSUPPORT will cause the least > "breakage".
Either way works for me.
Thanks,
tglx
| |