Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 20 2023 at 07:22, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> So the decision matrix would be:
>>>
>>> Ret2user Ret2kernel PreemptCnt=0
>>>
>>> NEED_RESCHED Y Y Y
>>> LAZY_RESCHED Y N N
>>>
>>> That is completely independent of the preemption model and the
>>> differentiation of the preemption models happens solely at the scheduler
>>> level:
>>
>> This is relatively minor, but do we need two flags? Seems to me we
>> can get to the same decision matrix by letting the scheduler fold
>> into the preempt-count based on current preemption model.
>
> You still need the TIF flags because there is no way to do remote
> modification of preempt count.
Yes, agreed. In my version, I was envisaging that the remote cpu always
only sets up TIF_NEED_RESCHED and then we decide which one we want at
the preemption point.
Anyway, I see what you meant in your PoC.
>>> But they support PREEMPT_COUNT, so we might get away with a reduced
>>> preemption point coverage:
>>>
>>> Ret2user Ret2kernel PreemptCnt=0
>>>
>>> NEED_RESCHED Y N Y
>>> LAZY_RESCHED Y N N
>>
>> So from the discussion in the other thread, for the ARCH_NO_PREEMPT
>> configs that don't support preemption, we probably need a fourth
>> preemption model, say PREEMPT_UNSAFE.
>
> As discussed they wont really notice the latency issues because the
> museum pieces are not used for anything crucial and for UM that's the
> least of the correctness worries.
>
> So no, we don't need yet another knob. We keep them chucking along and
> if they really want they can adopt to the new world order. :)
Will they chuckle along, or die trying ;)?
I grepped for "preempt_enable|preempt_disable" for all the archs and
hexagon and m68k don't seem to do any explicit accounting at all.
(Though, neither do nios2 and openrisc, and both csky and microblaze
only do it in the tlbflush path.)
arch/hexagon 0
arch/m68k 0
arch/nios2 0
arch/openrisc 0
arch/csky 3
arch/microblaze 3
arch/um 4
arch/riscv 8
arch/arc 14
arch/parisc 15
arch/arm 16
arch/sparc 16
arch/xtensa 19
arch/sh 21
arch/alpha 23
arch/ia64 27
arch/loongarch 53
arch/arm64 54
arch/s390 91
arch/mips 115
arch/x86 146
arch/powerpc 201
My concern is given that we preempt on timeslice expiration for all
three preemption models, we could end up preempting at an unsafe
location.
Still, not the most pressing of problems.
Thanks
--
ankur
