On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:32:54PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:16:11 +0100 (CET)
> > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > Also, maybe the tracer should measure the time from need_resched()
> > > > > getting true until the next preemption point, instead of the entire time
> > > > > preemption was disabled. Which would avoid the entire issue altogether.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that only gives you the information on a actual preemption, but not
> > > > information about long preempt disabled regions which can cause a problem
> > > > eventually.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, I was thinking the reverse. If need_resched() is called and
> > > is false, then do a reset of the preemption time. But if need_resched()
> > > is true, then do nothing, as that would measure the total time preempt
> > > disable was set and a task could not schedule.
> > >
> > > Question is, should this be a hook and each location audited, or add
> > > this to need_resched() itself?
> >
> > Is anybody calling need_resched() and then not doing anything with the
> > value?
>
> Probably not. So Stevens idea makes a lot of sense.
>
Provably not (provided I did not screw up the spec). So all need_resched
are ither in a if|while condition, an argument to a function or part of a
return value.
<snip>
@need_resched exists@
identifier func,val;
statement S1,S2;
expression E1,E2;
position p;
@@
(
if(<+... need_resched()@p ...+>) S1 else S2
|
while (<+... need_resched()@p ...+>) S1
//|
// Do while not supported in coccinelle :(
// do { ... } while (<+... need_resched()@p ...+>);
|
val = need_resched()@p ? E1 : E2;
|
func(..., need_resched()@p, ...);
|
return <+... need_resched()@p ...+>;
)
@need_resched_unused exists@
position p != need_resched.p;
@@
* need_resched()@p
@script:python@
p << need_resched_unused.p;
@@
print "need_resched() in %s line %s not used" % (p[0].file,p[0].line)
<snip>
except for the unhandled do{...} while(need_resched()); cases as cocci
currently does not support do{}while(); constructs this does not report
any unused need_resched() cases and the 5 reported findings:
need_resched() in ./include/net/busy_poll.h line 112 not used
need_resched() in ./kernel/sched/core.c line 3453 not used
need_resched() in ./kernel/sched/core.c line 3573 not used
need_resched() in ./kernel/sched/core.c line 3546 not used
need_resched() in ./kernel/sched/core.c line 3406 not used
where manually checked and are all do{}while(need_resched()); cases.
thx!
hofrat
--
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
