On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 10:16:13 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And yes, you can still use the whole 'delay preemption' hint for RT > > tasks just fine. Spinlocks isn't the only thing. It can be used to make > > any RSEQ section more likely to succeed. > > > > > > > Patch 2 changes that to do what you wrote the last time. It has a max wait > > > time of 50us. > > > > I'm so confused, WTF do you then need the lazy crap? > > > > You're making things needlessly complicated again. > > Do we really want to delay an RT task by 50us? If you go back and reread that initial thread, you'll find the 50us is below the scheduling latency that random test box already had. I'm sure more modern systems will have a lower number, and slower systems will have a larger number, but we got to pick a number :/ I'm fine with making it 20us. Or whatever. Its just a stupid number. But yes. If we're going to be doing this, there is absolutely no reason not to allow DEADLINE/FIFO threads the same. Misbehaving FIFO is already a problem, and we can make DL-CBS enforcement punch through it if we have to. And less retries on the RSEQ for FIFO can equally improve performance. There is no difference between a 'malicious/broken' userspace consuming the entire window in userspace (50us, 20us whatever it will be) and doing a system call which we know will cause similar delays because it does in-kernel locking.
