On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 01:57:20PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Add tif_resched() which will be used as an accessor for TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> and TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY. The intent is to force the caller to make an
> explicit choice of how eagerly they want a reschedule.
>
> This interface will be used almost entirely from core kernel code, so
> forcing a choice shouldn't be too onerous.
>
> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/thread_info.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/thread_info.h b/include/linux/thread_info.h
> index 9ea0b28068f4..4eb22b13bf64 100644
> --- a/include/linux/thread_info.h
> +++ b/include/linux/thread_info.h
> @@ -59,6 +59,27 @@ enum syscall_work_bit {
>
> #include <asm/thread_info.h>
>
> +#ifndef TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY
> +#error "Arch needs to define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY"
> +#endif
> +
> +#define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY_OFFSET (TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY - TIF_NEED_RESCHED)
> +
> +typedef enum {
> + RESCHED_eager = 0,
> + RESCHED_lazy = TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY_OFFSET,
> +} resched_t;
> +
> +static inline int tif_resched(resched_t r)
> +{
> + return TIF_NEED_RESCHED + r;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int _tif_resched(resched_t r)
> +{
> + return 1 << tif_resched(r);
> +}
So either I'm confused or I'm thinking this is wrong. If you want to
preempt eagerly you want to preempt more than when you're not eager to
preempt, right?
So an eager preemption site wants to include the LAZY bit.
Whereas a site that wants to lazily preempt would prefer to not preempt
until forced, and hence would not include LAZY bit.
