* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:00:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > It is, might_sleep() implies might_resched(). In fact, that's all what > > > > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is, make the might_sleep() debug test imply a resched > > > > point. > > > > > > Grr, how intuitive - NOT! > > > > No, it actually makes sense. Because you 'obviously' only call > > might_sleep() in contexts that should be able to sleep (if not, it'll > > holler). So they're already placed right for preemption. > > I disagree. might_sleep() is commonly known as a debug mechanism and it > existed before the preemption stuff went in. So the easy way to sprinkle > preemption points into the kernel was to hijack might_sleep(). I know it's > historical, but that doesnt make it any more intuitive. If we rename it to might_as_well_sleep() it becomes more intuitive! ;-) Thanks, Ingo -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
