Re: [rfc patch v4.4-rt2] sched: fix up preempt lazy forward port

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/22/2016 10:40 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2016-01-22 13:54:43 [+0100]:

Should _TIF_WORK_MASK also contain _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY?

Yes, and arm64 lacks the same bits.

That would be this. If a compiler is reading here and knows how to
improve the following, please let me know :)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/thread_info.h
index 46cc07b5cae6..1f36a4eccc72 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/thread_info.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/thread_info.h
@@ -143,8 +143,8 @@ extern int vfp_restore_user_hwstate(struct user_vfp __user *,
  #define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE	4	/* syscall trace active */
  #define TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT	5	/* syscall auditing active */
  #define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT	6	/* syscall tracepoint instrumentation */
-#define TIF_SECCOMP		7	/* seccomp syscall filtering active */
-#define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY	8
+#define TIF_SECCOMP		8	/* seccomp syscall filtering active */
+#define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY	7

  #define TIF_NOHZ		12	/* in adaptive nohz mode */
  #define TIF_USING_IWMMXT	17
@@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ extern int vfp_restore_user_hwstate(struct user_vfp __user *,
   * Change these and you break ASM code in entry-common.S
   */
  #define _TIF_WORK_MASK		(_TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_SIGPENDING | \
-				 _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME | _TIF_UPROBE)
+				 _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME | _TIF_UPROBE | \
+				 _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY)

  #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
  #endif /* __ASM_ARM_THREAD_INFO_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
index 30a7228eaceb..c3bd6cbfce4b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
@@ -36,7 +36,9 @@
   UNWIND(.cantunwind	)
  	disable_irq_notrace			@ disable interrupts
  	ldr	r1, [tsk, #TI_FLAGS]		@ re-check for syscall tracing
-	tst	r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
+	tst	r1, #((_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK) & ~_TIF_SECCOMP)
+	bne	fast_work_pending
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+	tst	r1, #_TIF_SECCOMP
  	bne	fast_work_pending
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Should it be "fast_work_pending" in both cases?


  	/* perform architecture specific actions before user return */
@@ -62,8 +64,11 @@ ENDPROC(ret_fast_syscall)
  	str	r0, [sp, #S_R0 + S_OFF]!	@ save returned r0
  	disable_irq_notrace			@ disable interrupts
  	ldr	r1, [tsk, #TI_FLAGS]		@ re-check for syscall tracing
-	tst	r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
+	tst	r1, #((_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK) & ~_TIF_SECCOMP)
+	bne 	do_slower_path
+	tst	r1, #_TIF_SECCOMP
  	beq	no_work_pending
+do_slower_path:
   UNWIND(.fnend		)
  ENDPROC(ret_fast_syscall)

[...]

--
regards,
-grygorii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [RT Stable]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux