On Tue 24-10-17 08:52:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:59:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 24-10-17 03:02:09, tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Commit-ID: f79c3ad6189624c3de0ad5521610c9e22a1c33cf
> > > Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/f79c3ad6189624c3de0ad5521610c9e22a1c33cf
> > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > AuthorDate: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:24:30 -0800
> > > Committer: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CommitDate: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:25:17 -0700
> > >
> > > sched,rcu: Make cond_resched() provide RCU quiescent state
> > >
> > > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU quiescent
> > > states to cond_resched(). This commit also simplifies the code that
> > > used to interact with cond_resched_rcu_qs(), and that now interacts with
> > > cond_resched(), to reduce its overhead. This reduction is necessary to
> > > allow the heavier-weight cond_resched_rcu_qs() mechanism to be invoked
> > > everywhere that cond_resched() is invoked.
> > >
> > > Part of that reduction in overhead converts the jiffies_till_sched_qs
> > > kernel parameter to read-only at runtime, thus eliminating the need for
> > > bounds checking.
> >
> > Thanks a lot Paul! I have just one question. Does the above mean that we
> > can drop cond_resched_rcu_qs? Or there are still some scenarios when
> > this is a better option?
>
> Good point, and no time like the present! Please see commits cc1c305fff49
> ("netfilter: Eliminate cond_resched_rcu_qs() in favor of cond_resched()")
> through cca9c4def233 ("rcu: Eliminate the cond_resched_rcu_qs()
> definition") in my -rcu tree:
cool stuff. Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|