lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [RFC PATCH 71/86] treewide: lib: remove cond_resched()
Date
From: Steven Rostedt
> Sent: 08 November 2023 19:42
>
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:15:37 -0800
> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > FOr the memcpy_kunit.c cases, I don't think there are preemption
> > locations in its loops. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something? Why will
> > the memcpy test no longer produce softlockup splats?
>
> This patchset will switch over to a NEED_RESCHED_LAZY routine, so that
> VOLUNTARY and NONE preemption models will be forced to preempt if its in
> the kernel for too long.
>
> Time slice is over: set NEED_RESCHED_LAZY
>
> For VOLUNTARY and NONE, NEED_RESCHED_LAZY will not preempt the kernel (but
> will preempt user space).
>
> If in the kernel for over 1 tick (1ms for 1000Hz, 4ms for 250Hz, etc),
> if NEED_RESCHED_LAZY is still set after one tick, then set NEED_RESCHED.

Delaying the reschedule that long seems like a regression.
I'm sure a lot of the cond_resched() calls were added to cause
pre-emption much earlier than 1 tick.

I doubt the distibutions will change from VOLUTARY any time soon.
So that is what most people will be using.

David.

>
> NEED_RESCHED will now schedule in the kernel once it is able to regardless
> of preemption model. (PREEMPT_NONE will now use preempt_disable()).
>
> This allows us to get rid of all cond_resched()s throughout the kernel as
> this will be the new mechanism to keep from running inside the kernel for
> too long. The watchdog is always longer than one tick.
>
> -- Steve

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-11-20 13:53    [W:0.474 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site